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.
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 by calling for a fundamental reassessment of the country’s relationship with the European Union, opening the door to closer economic cooperation and, potentially, a future return to EU membership. The prime minister’s position has provoked criticism from Brexit supporters, who fear that a policy presented as an economic reset could eventually lead to a reversal of one of the most consequential decisions in modern British politics.
Burnham has argued that the existing relationship with Brussels is not good enough and that Britain needs to examine the available options honestly. His approach marks a significant development in the political debate, particularly because it goes beyond simply negotiating limited agreements on trade, energy and immigration.
The controversy has also exposed a wider question facing the country: should Britain continue building its future outside the EU, seek a closer economic partnership or eventually reconsider membership altogether?
For supporters of Brexit, the prospect of reversing the decision risks undermining the democratic mandate expressed in the 2016 referendum. For advocates of closer European ties, refusing to reconsider the relationship could mean accepting unnecessary economic barriers and missed opportunities for cooperation.
The disagreement is likely to remain a major political issue as the government prepares for further discussions with European leaders.
Burnham opens the door to a different Brexit future
Burnham’s intervention has gone beyond the familiar argument that Britain should improve its existing arrangements with the EU.
Following his Labour conference speech in September, he said the country should examine several possible futures, ranging from maintaining the current relationship to pursuing a customs union, closer single-market participation or even full EU membership. He argued that Brexit had done more harm than good and that Britain needed a serious discussion about its long-term economic prospects.
His remarks have created uncertainty about how far the government might ultimately be prepared to go. A customs union, for example, could reduce certain trade barriers but would involve constraints on Britain’s independent trade policy. Single-market participation could offer businesses greater access to European markets, but would raise questions about regulatory alignment and the obligations associated with membership.
Full EU membership would be a much more extensive change, involving negotiations over the terms of accession and acceptance of the obligations that apply to member states.
These are distinct policy choices, not different names for the same arrangement.
Burnham has not announced that Britain is immediately rejoining the EU. Rather, he has argued that the country should consider the full range of options before deciding which relationship best serves its interests. His willingness to include membership in that discussion is nevertheless a departure from the more restrictive approach adopted by previous Labour leadership positions.
The debate is therefore no longer confined to whether Britain should make minor adjustments to its post-Brexit arrangements. It now includes the question of whether the underlying settlement remains appropriate for the country’s future.
The new EU deal and the November summit
The immediate focus is on practical agreements that Britain and the EU could pursue without reversing Brexit.
Burnham has identified food and drink trade, youth mobility, energy cooperation and closer collaboration on immigration as important areas for discussion. A UK-EU summit scheduled for 20 November 2026 is expected to provide an opportunity to advance negotiations on several of these issues.
In a statement to MPs on 12 October, Burnham argued that failing to seek a better relationship with Britain’s largest nearby trading partner would be a dereliction of duty. His government has presented closer cooperation as a potential way to support economic growth while addressing practical problems created by the current arrangements.
One proposal concerns reducing checks and administrative barriers affecting food and agricultural products traded between Britain and the EU. Businesses exporting perishable goods can face additional costs when shipments require documentation, inspections or other border procedures.
A closer agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary standards could simplify some of these processes, provided the parties agree on the necessary regulatory arrangements.
Energy cooperation is another potential area for progress. Closer coordination could help improve the operation of interconnected energy markets, although the eventual benefits would depend on the details of any agreement.
Youth mobility is also contentious. A limited scheme allowing eligible young people to live, study or work across borders could create opportunities for British and European participants. Critics, however, may question the eligibility rules, duration and potential effects on migration.
These proposed agreements do not automatically amount to a reversal of Brexit. They would instead represent attempts to change particular aspects of the relationship while Britain remains outside the EU.
Why Brexit supporters are angry
For many Brexit supporters, the 2016 referendum was about more than trade. It was a decision about national sovereignty, democratic accountability and the authority of British institutions to make laws and determine policy.
They argue that leaving the EU was intended to give Britain greater freedom over immigration, regulation, trade agreements and domestic priorities. From this perspective, gradually adopting European rules or entering new arrangements with Brussels could reduce some of the practical independence that Brexit was intended to secure.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has criticised Burnham’s approach, accusing him of unpicking the Brexit settlement and arguing that the EU is unlikely to offer Britain a better deal simply because the government wants closer relations.
Her criticism highlights an important negotiating question: what would Britain have to accept in exchange for improved access to European markets?
The EU has its own interests and cannot be expected to offer all the advantages of membership without requiring compliance with relevant rules. Depending on the arrangement, Britain could face obligations concerning standards, dispute resolution, financial contributions or the role of European institutions.
For critics, this creates the risk of a compromise in which Britain accepts constraints without gaining the full influence it would possess as a member state.
Supporters of Burnham’s approach respond that all international agreements involve compromises. They argue that the relevant comparison is not between complete independence and complete integration, but between the practical costs and benefits of the available arrangements.
The key question is whether any proposed agreement would improve Britain’s position sufficiently to justify the obligations involved.
The economic argument for closer ties
The economic consequences of Brexit remain central to the debate.
Leaving the EU changed the conditions under which British businesses trade with European partners. Although the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement preserved tariff-free trade in qualifying goods, companies have faced additional procedures and regulatory requirements in some areas.
These barriers can be particularly significant for smaller firms, which may have fewer resources to manage complex paperwork and compliance requirements.
Supporters of a closer relationship argue that reducing unnecessary barriers could encourage trade, investment and business expansion. They also believe greater certainty about the long-term relationship could help companies make investment decisions.
However, the economic benefits of closer ties would depend on the details of the agreements. A limited deal on food standards would not necessarily deliver the same effects as participation in the single market, and neither would automatically reproduce every advantage or obligation of EU membership.
Nor would a closer relationship solve all Britain’s economic problems. Productivity, housing, skills, infrastructure, taxation and domestic investment would continue to influence economic performance.
A credible government assessment should therefore explain which sectors could benefit, what new obligations would apply and how the projected gains have been calculated.
The Treasury’s potential role in examining different options has also attracted attention, although the precise scope of any future assessment must be distinguished from decisions that have already been made.
The economic case needs to be judged on evidence rather than on either nostalgia for membership or assumptions that leaving the EU automatically produced greater prosperity.
Immigration complicates the debate
Immigration is one of the most politically sensitive aspects of any discussion about Britain’s relationship with Europe.
Brexit supporters argued that leaving the EU would allow the UK to exercise greater control over migration rules. Many continue to view freedom of movement as a central issue, making any proposal that resembles a return to pre-Brexit arrangements particularly controversial.
Burnham has argued that closer cooperation with European partners could help Britain manage immigration more effectively. His position reflects the argument that international coordination can be useful in tackling irregular migration, sharing information and improving enforcement.
However, cooperation on security and asylum is not the same as restoring freedom of movement. An agreement designed to coordinate action against people-smuggling networks would have different implications from a scheme allowing citizens to move between countries for employment.
Youth mobility proposals also need to be examined on their own terms. A capped and time-limited arrangement would differ from the unrestricted movement that applied when Britain was an EU member.
The government will need to explain precisely what any agreement would permit, who would qualify and how the arrangements would be enforced.
Without those details, both supporters and opponents risk treating every form of cooperation as though it necessarily entails the same consequences.
Could Britain eventually rejoin the EU?
Burnham’s willingness to consider full membership has revived speculation about whether a future Labour manifesto could include a commitment to reverse Brexit.
Such a change would represent a major political decision, requiring a clear mandate and negotiations with European governments. Britain could not simply declare that it was returning to its former position and expect all the previous membership terms to be restored automatically.
The terms of accession would need to be negotiated, and existing EU members would have a role in the process. Questions about budget contributions, regulatory obligations, institutional representation and the treatment of existing arrangements would all require attention.
A referendum could become part of the political process, depending on the government’s proposals and the commitments made to voters. But no immediate referendum or automatic return to membership follows from Burnham’s announcement that different options should be examined.
The political challenge would be substantial. Brexit remains an issue on which voters hold strongly differing views, and a campaign to rejoin could reopen arguments that have shaped British politics for a decade.
Supporters would need to demonstrate the practical advantages of membership, while opponents would argue that the country should respect the 2016 result and retain its independence outside the bloc.
Before any final decision, voters would need a clear explanation of the proposed terms and the likely economic, political and legal consequences.
A defining decision for Britain’s future
The controversy over Burnham’s proposed EU reset reflects a broader struggle over how Britain should define its place in Europe.
For Brexit supporters, the danger is that a series of apparently technical agreements could gradually weaken the independence promised when the country voted to leave. For advocates of closer ties, the danger is that political reluctance to reconsider Brexit could prevent Britain from correcting economic disadvantages and strengthening cooperation with neighbouring countries.
Neither position can be resolved through slogans alone.
The government must explain the precise terms of its proposals, identify the trade-offs and provide credible assessments of the expected benefits. Opposition parties should scrutinise those plans carefully, particularly where they involve regulatory obligations, immigration arrangements or limits on future policy choices.
The November summit may provide an important opportunity to advance practical cooperation, but it will not, by itself, settle the question of Britain’s long-term relationship with the EU.
Burnham’s willingness to discuss options ranging from limited cooperation to full membership has undoubtedly widened the political debate. Whether that leads to a new trade arrangement, a more extensive partnership or a future discussion about rejoining will depend on negotiations, parliamentary decisions and the mandate sought from the public.
The central issue is whether Britain can find an arrangement that supports prosperity, protects democratic accountability and commands sufficient public confidence to endure.
For now, the prospect of a new EU deal has reopened one of the country’s most divisive political questions: what did Brexit achieve, what has it cost, and what kind of relationship with Europe would best serve Britain over the coming decades?