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 by calling for a closer relationship with the European Union and promising to pursue new agreements designed to strengthen trade, improve cooperation and support economic growth. His proposals have triggered a political confrontation, with critics accusing him of reopening a question that divided the country a decade ago, while supporters argue that Britain cannot afford to ignore the potential benefits of closer European ties.
The controversy centres on a forthcoming UK-EU summit scheduled for November 20, 2026. Burnham intends to use the meeting to pursue agreements covering food and drink trade, emissions trading, youth mobility and energy cooperation. He has suggested that the combined economic benefits could eventually amount to more than £10 billion annually by 2040, although that figure represents a projected benefit rather than guaranteed additional growth.
For opponents, the proposals raise difficult questions about the direction of Britain’s post-Brexit settlement. For supporters, they represent an attempt to address practical problems that have emerged since the UK left the EU.
Despite the dramatic language of political headlines, Burnham has not announced an immediate return to EU membership. Instead, he has called for a wider discussion about Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe, insisting that the public should have the final say over any major future change.
Why the New EU Deal Has Sparked a Political Storm
Burnham’s intervention is significant because previous governments have generally tried to avoid reopening the most divisive aspects of Brexit. The focus has instead been on negotiating limited agreements that improve cooperation without restoring Britain’s former membership arrangements.
Burnham has taken a more expansive approach. He has argued that the existing relationship is insufficient and that Britain should examine the available options for closer cooperation over the coming decade.
His immediate priorities are more specific than the language of a political “Brexit betrayal” might suggest. The proposed food and drink agreement is intended to reduce barriers affecting trade in agricultural products. Linking emissions trading systems could help businesses operating across both markets, while a youth mobility scheme could create additional opportunities for younger people to live, study and work abroad under agreed conditions.
Energy cooperation is another area where closer links could provide practical benefits. Greater coordination between British and European energy markets could support efficiency and help businesses navigate an increasingly interconnected system.
However, these proposals would require negotiation. The EU has its own regulatory requirements and political priorities, and there is no guarantee that every British demand will be accepted.
Burnham has also warned about the EU’s proposed “Made in Europe” policies, which are intended to strengthen European industry but could create difficulties for British manufacturers if UK businesses are excluded from particular arrangements.
That tension illustrates the complexity of the negotiations. Britain wants better access to European opportunities while retaining important elements of its independence outside the bloc.
Kemi Badenoch Accuses Burnham of Undermining Brexit
The Conservative opposition has challenged Burnham’s approach, arguing that his willingness to reconsider Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe risks undermining the agreement reached after the referendum.
Kemi Badenoch has accused the prime minister of “unpicking” the Brexit deal. She has also argued that revealing too much about the government’s objectives before negotiations begin could weaken Britain’s bargaining position.
The criticism raises two separate issues. The first is political: whether the government should revisit the terms of Brexit. The second concerns negotiating strategy: whether publicly outlining its objectives makes it harder to secure favourable concessions from European counterparts.
Burnham’s supporters reject the suggestion that seeking new agreements necessarily amounts to reversing the referendum. They argue that Britain can remain outside the EU while improving arrangements that affect trade, security and economic cooperation.
The government has also maintained that its existing manifesto commitments will remain in place during the current parliamentary term. These include not returning to the single market or customs union and not restoring unrestricted freedom of movement.
Nevertheless, Burnham has declined to rule out examining a wider range of options for the longer term. That position has made the debate more politically sensitive because it leaves open questions about what Britain’s relationship with Europe could look like after the next general election.
For Brexit supporters, the concern is that a series of apparently limited agreements could gradually bring Britain closer to EU rules without a clear public decision on the overall direction.
For supporters of closer integration, the same process could be seen as a pragmatic way to address economic problems without rushing into another constitutional confrontation.
Could the New Deal Boost Britain’s Economy?
Economic growth is central to Burnham’s argument. Britain continues to face challenges involving productivity, investment and the cost of living, and the government is seeking ways to improve the country’s long-term performance.
Leaving the EU changed the conditions under which many British businesses trade with European partners. Additional paperwork, customs procedures and regulatory requirements have created difficulties for some exporters, particularly smaller companies with limited resources.
A new food and drink agreement could reduce certain barriers, making it easier for British producers to sell goods into European markets. For agricultural businesses, food manufacturers and exporters, even modest improvements in trading arrangements could be valuable.
However, the potential gains would depend on the precise terms of any agreement. Businesses would need to understand the regulatory requirements, and the government would have to ensure that any concessions offered to secure access were consistent with its wider policy objectives.
The projected £10 billion annual economic benefit cited by Burnham should therefore be treated as a long-term estimate, not a promise that households will immediately become better off. The actual outcome would depend on the agreements reached, the response of businesses and broader economic conditions.
Critics also argue that Britain should concentrate on domestic reforms rather than expecting European agreements to solve longstanding problems. Improving infrastructure, developing skills, encouraging investment and increasing productivity remain important regardless of the country’s relationship with the EU.
The strongest assessment of Burnham’s approach will ultimately depend on whether the proposed agreements deliver measurable improvements in trade and economic performance.
Immigration and Youth Mobility Remain Sensitive Issues
Youth mobility is likely to become one of the most politically contentious elements of the negotiations.
A scheme allowing young people from Britain and EU countries to live, study or work across borders could create opportunities for education, employment and cultural exchange. Supporters argue that such arrangements would help younger generations develop skills and give British businesses access to a wider pool of temporary workers.
Opponents may worry that new mobility arrangements could increase migration or create a route towards restoring freedom of movement in practice.
The details will matter. A limited youth mobility programme would not necessarily be equivalent to the unrestricted freedom of movement that existed when Britain was an EU member. Eligibility requirements, age limits, quotas and the length of permitted stays could all shape how the scheme operates.
Burnham must explain these distinctions clearly if he wants to avoid confusion about the government’s intentions.
Immigration remains a major political issue, and any agreement that affects movement between Britain and Europe is likely to attract close scrutiny. Supporters will want to know whether the arrangements deliver genuine benefits, while critics will demand assurances about the rules and their enforcement.
A successful agreement would need to balance opportunities for young people with public confidence that immigration policy remains transparent and properly managed.
Has Britain Reached a Turning Point on Brexit?
Burnham’s approach suggests that the political conversation about Brexit is changing, although it does not demonstrate that the country has reached a consensus in favour of rejoining the EU.
Some voters believe leaving the bloc has harmed Britain’s economic prospects and want a closer relationship. Others continue to support Brexit because they value national sovereignty and believe the country should develop its own policies outside the European Union.
There are also many people whose views fall between these positions. They may support better trade arrangements and cooperation on security while opposing a return to EU membership.
This diversity of opinion creates a challenge for the government. Burnham has promised that the public will remain in control of any future decision about a closer relationship with Europe. That commitment will be important if the government eventually considers changes that go beyond individual trade agreements.
Any substantial move towards EU membership would require a much more extensive political process, including negotiations over the terms of accession and decisions about the conditions Britain would be expected to accept.
The November summit will not settle those questions. It will, however, provide an opportunity to test whether Britain and the EU can agree on practical measures that deliver mutual benefits.
What Happens Next?
The immediate focus will be on the negotiations ahead of the November 20 summit. Both sides will have to determine whether they can reach agreements on food and drink trade, emissions trading, youth mobility and energy cooperation while addressing concerns about industrial policy.
Burnham will also face pressure to explain how his proposals fit into the government’s wider economic strategy. He must show that closer European cooperation can complement domestic reforms rather than become a substitute for them.
Badenoch and other critics are likely to continue questioning the government’s negotiating strategy and its willingness to revisit Brexit-related commitments. Supporters of closer EU ties, meanwhile, will demand that the government pursue the available opportunities with sufficient ambition.
The outcome will depend on the details of the negotiations, not the strength of the political slogans used to describe them.
Burnham’s proposals represent a renewed attempt to reshape Britain’s relationship with Europe, but they do not amount to an immediate decision to rejoin the EU. Whether they become a turning point will depend on what agreements are reached, what benefits they deliver and whether the public considers the results worthwhile.
For now, the debate is less about an announced “Brexit betrayal” than about a fundamental question facing Britain: how much closer should the country move towards Europe while remaining outside the European Union? The answer will shape the government’s economic policy and its political relationship with voters for years to come.