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.
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 his government wants a significantly closer relationship with the European Union. His plans for a new agreement with Brussels have sparked criticism from opponents who fear that the United Kingdom could gradually move away from the independence promised by Brexit.
The controversy centres on a series of proposed agreements covering food and agricultural trade, energy cooperation, youth mobility and immigration. Supporters say these measures could reduce unnecessary barriers, encourage economic growth and improve cooperation with European neighbours. Critics, however, argue that closer alignment with EU rules could weaken the practical benefits of leaving the bloc.
The debate intensified after Burnham told MPs on October 12 that refusing to explore a better relationship with Europe would amount to a “major dereliction of duty”. He argued that Britain could not afford to ignore opportunities to improve trade and address problems that have emerged since Brexit.
A UK-EU summit is scheduled for November 20, 2026, where both sides are expected to discuss potential agreements. Although the meeting does not amount to a decision to rejoin the EU, it could become an important moment in determining the direction of Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with Brussels.
A New Deal That Could Change Britain’s Relationship With Europe
Burnham’s immediate objective is to secure practical agreements that could make cooperation between Britain and the EU easier. One of the main areas under discussion is food and agricultural trade, where additional checks and paperwork have created challenges for some businesses since the UK left the European Union.
A new agreement could reduce certain barriers by bringing relevant standards and regulatory arrangements closer together. For British exporters, that could mean fewer administrative complications when selling products into European markets. Consumers and businesses could also benefit if improved trade arrangements reduced delays and costs.
However, closer alignment would involve compromises. Where Britain agrees to follow EU standards, it may have less freedom to establish different rules in those particular areas. The political question is whether the economic benefits would justify accepting those obligations.
This is where the Brexit argument becomes particularly contentious. Supporters of leaving the EU often emphasise the ability to establish independent regulations and make domestic decisions without being bound by European institutions. They may therefore regard regulatory alignment as a step towards restoring some of the constraints that Brexit was intended to remove.
Those who favour closer cooperation argue that formal independence does not automatically translate into greater economic advantage. If British companies must comply with European standards to access European markets, aligning regulations could sometimes be more efficient than maintaining separate systems.
The challenge for Burnham will be to demonstrate that any new agreement offers tangible benefits rather than simply creating a different set of obligations.
The Row Over Brexit and National Sovereignty
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has criticised Burnham’s approach, accusing him of “unpicking” the Brexit settlement and revealing too much of Britain’s negotiating position before discussions with Brussels begin.
Her argument reflects a longstanding concern among Brexit supporters: that the EU could use Britain’s desire for improved trade to secure concessions that reduce the country’s ability to make independent decisions.
Negotiations between governments rarely involve only one side making demands. The EU has its own priorities, rules and political constraints, and any agreement would need to satisfy both parties. British negotiators would therefore have to balance the desire for easier market access against the obligations Brussels might require in return.
Burnham faces a difficult political calculation. If he announces ambitious objectives, critics may accuse him of signalling that Britain is prepared to make substantial concessions. If he offers only limited changes, businesses and voters who want a more effective relationship with Europe may question whether the proposed reset goes far enough.
The government will need to explain what it hopes to achieve, what it is prepared to offer and which commitments it will not accept. Without that clarity, the phrase “new EU deal” risks becoming a political slogan rather than a clearly defined programme.
It is also important to distinguish between renegotiating individual agreements and reversing Brexit itself. A trade agreement, an energy partnership or a youth mobility arrangement would not automatically make Britain an EU member again. Each would have its own terms, obligations and political implications.
Nevertheless, smaller agreements could influence the longer-term debate by demonstrating the advantages and limitations of the current relationship.
Immigration Becomes Part of the Argument
Immigration is another issue Burnham has brought into the discussion. His government argues that greater cooperation with European partners could help address irregular migration while improving coordination between authorities.
For a country where immigration remains a major political concern, that argument could prove significant. Governments often need to cooperate internationally to share information, coordinate enforcement and manage the return of people who do not have permission to remain.
But cooperation with the EU does not automatically guarantee better results. The details of any arrangement would matter, including the responsibilities of participating countries, the legal protections involved and the practical mechanisms for implementing decisions.
Critics may question whether closer relations with Brussels would genuinely strengthen border controls or introduce additional commitments that the public has not been asked to approve. Supporters will argue that international cooperation can be compatible with national control and may be necessary to achieve objectives that Britain cannot easily accomplish alone.
The government will therefore need to provide evidence that any proposed arrangement would deliver measurable improvements. General promises of better cooperation will not, by themselves, settle the debate.
Immigration policy also intersects with the question of free movement. Some voters fear that closer EU relations could eventually lead to a return to arrangements that allow citizens to move between countries more freely. Others support limited opportunities for young people to live, work and study abroad without restoring unrestricted freedom of movement.
A youth mobility scheme is among the measures expected to be discussed at the November summit. Such an arrangement would need clear rules concerning eligibility, duration and participation. It would not necessarily be equivalent to the pre-Brexit system of free movement.
That distinction will be important as politicians attempt to explain the proposed deal to the public.
Could Britain Eventually Rejoin the EU?
Perhaps the most politically sensitive question is whether Burnham’s push for closer relations could eventually lead Britain back towards EU membership.
He has previously indicated that the government should examine different options for the country’s long-term relationship with Europe, including the possibility of going further than the limited agreements pursued by earlier administrations. His remarks have opened a discussion that many political leaders had tried to keep in the background since the referendum.
For now, the immediate negotiations are focused on practical areas such as food trade, energy, emissions trading and youth mobility. These proposals should not be confused with a formal application to rejoin the European Union.
Full membership would involve a much broader set of questions. Britain would need to negotiate with EU institutions and member states, address the terms of accession and decide how to approach the obligations associated with membership. Any serious proposal would also face intense political scrutiny at home.
There would be questions about public consent, the future of British regulatory policy, the role of European institutions and the potential economic consequences of membership. A decision of that scale would require far more than an agreement reached at a single summit.
For opponents of closer ties, the concern is that a series of smaller agreements could gradually move Britain towards a relationship that resembles membership without giving voters a clear opportunity to assess the overall direction. For supporters, incremental cooperation may simply be a practical way to address problems without reopening every question settled by Brexit.
Both interpretations highlight the importance of transparency. The public needs to understand not only the terms of individual agreements but also how they fit into the government’s longer-term objectives.
The Economic Stakes
The economic case for a closer relationship with Europe will be central to the government’s argument.
The EU remains an important market for British businesses, and the additional procedures associated with post-Brexit trade have affected some exporters and importers. Smaller firms can be particularly vulnerable when administrative requirements increase the cost of doing business across borders.
Reducing unnecessary friction could help businesses plan more confidently, reach customers and manage supply chains. Better cooperation on energy could also provide opportunities to coordinate infrastructure and market arrangements.
However, the benefits would depend on the final agreements and how they were implemented. Regulatory alignment could reduce some costs while creating obligations elsewhere. Negotiations might also take time, meaning that any promised improvements would not necessarily be immediate.
Nor can every economic difficulty be attributed to Brexit alone. Inflation, international competition, investment decisions, productivity and changes in global demand all influence the performance of the British economy.
A credible assessment would therefore compare the likely benefits and costs of specific proposals rather than assume that either closer EU ties or greater regulatory independence would solve every problem.
For Burnham, demonstrating practical results will be essential. If a new agreement reduces paperwork, improves market access or delivers other measurable benefits, the government will have concrete evidence to present. If the arrangements prove complicated or produce limited gains, critics will have grounds to challenge the strategy.
A Political Test Ahead of the November Summit
The November 20 summit is likely to attract considerable attention because it offers an opportunity to turn the government’s rhetoric into specific negotiating objectives.
Burnham will need to balance several competing priorities: improving trade, strengthening cooperation on security and migration, protecting British interests and maintaining public confidence in the country’s post-Brexit settlement.
The EU will also approach the negotiations with its own interests in mind. European institutions will want to protect the integrity of the single market and ensure that any concessions are consistent with the rules governing relations with non-member countries.
A successful outcome will therefore depend on compromise, not simply on Britain’s desire for a better agreement.
Politically, Burnham faces criticism from opponents who see closer ties as a retreat from Brexit, while supporters of a reset will expect him to secure meaningful changes. Some voters may welcome practical improvements without wanting a return to EU membership. Others may believe that limited agreements cannot resolve the deeper economic and political consequences of leaving the bloc.
These differences mean that the government will have to communicate carefully. It should set out what has been agreed, explain what remains under negotiation and avoid presenting proposed measures as guaranteed achievements.
What Happens Next?
The debate over Burnham’s proposed EU deal is ultimately about the kind of relationship Britain wants with Europe.
The November summit could produce progress on specific agreements, but it will not automatically settle the wider argument over Brexit. Questions about sovereignty, trade, immigration and democratic accountability will continue to shape public discussion.
For Brexit supporters, the test will be whether the government preserves meaningful national control while negotiating practical benefits. For advocates of closer European cooperation, the test will be whether the new arrangements improve economic conditions and address problems that existing agreements have failed to resolve.
Calling the proposed deal a “betrayal” reflects one political interpretation, not an established description of what the negotiations will deliver. The consequences can only be judged properly once the terms are clear and their effects can be assessed.
Burnham has opened the door to a more ambitious conversation about Britain’s future with the EU. Whether that conversation leads to a limited practical reset or a broader reconsideration of the post-Brexit settlement remains to be seen.
What is clear is that the November summit will place renewed attention on a question Britain has struggled to answer since 2016: how can the country protect its democratic choices while building the economic and diplomatic relationships it needs for the future?