European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen with Andy Burnham (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham has risked the wrath of Brexiteers in a latest reported move to cosy up to Brussels. The UK has reportedly agreed to give funding to some of the European Union’s poorer nations as part of plans to rejoin the bloc’s electricity market.
It comes as the Prime Minister was forced to deny he is not proposing a return to freedom of movement in efforts for closer UK-EU relations. A leaked draft text shows Labour has agreed to pay into EU development schemes as the price for British energy companies being allowed to trade freely in its electricity single market. Under the reported agreement, British taxpayer money will be injected into infrastructure projects in some of the EU’s smaller economic powers.
A draft joint EU-UK statement, seen by The Telegraph, said: “We agree that the UK’s participation in parts of the EU’s internal market requires an appropriate level of financial contribution towards reducing economic and social disparities between the regions of the EU that reflects the degree of the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal market.”
The statement has been circulated among European diplomats ahead of a joint summit later this month, reports say. New trade deals with the EU are expected to be unveiled at the summit in Brussels on November 20.
Agreements on a new food and drink agreement, a youth mobility scheme and a pact on emissions trading are all expected to be signed by the two sides. Mr Burnham has made stronger UK-EU ties a key focus, but his pro-EU comments have fuelled speculation about the prospect of Britain returning to the bloc or adopting its freedom of movement rules.
On Tuesday, he said he has not proposed the return of freedom of movement but vowed to make the public “the boss” in deciding Britain’s future relationship with Brussels. He said an “honest discussion” was needed about how temporary migration from Europe had been replaced by long-term settlement in larger numbers since Brexit.
Mr Burnham told the Commons last week there was “no confusion at all” about his position when asked if he wanted a referendum on rejoining the EU. The PM committed to sticking to red lines set out in Labour’s manifesto — which rule out returning to the customs union, single market or free movement — for the duration of this Parliament.
Mr Burnham prompted fury among Brexiteers in September after acknowledging he could go “all the way” and propose rejoining the EU. When asked whether he wanted to reverse the 2016 Brexit referendum, Mr Burnham said he wanted to “look at the options”.
The Conservatives responded by pointing to Mr Burnham’s stance during his Makerfield by-election campaign of not wanting to “rerun” the Brexit debate. Tory deputy leader Alex Burghart said: “You cannot trust a word Andy Burnham says. Just a few weeks ago he said he wanted to move on from the Brexit arguments and now he is dragging Britain back into them by floating the prospect of rejoining the EU.”
The Daily Expresss has launched a “Give Us a Proper Brexit” campaign, calling for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), slash red tape for businesses and the enforcement of a 12-mile exclusion zone around the UK for British vessels only.
A Government spokesman said: “We are building an ambitious, close relationship with the EU that will strengthen our economy, protect British industry, and create more opportunities for young people across the UK.”
Andy Burnham to Send Money to Help EU’s Poorest Countries in Major Brexit Betrayal
Prime Minister Andy Burnham is facing a growing political backlash after reports emerged that Britain could be required to contribute money towards development projects in some of the European Union’s poorest countries as part of a new agreement with Brussels.
The controversial proposal has reignited Britain’s Brexit divisions, with critics accusing Labour of making financial concessions to the EU in exchange for closer access to European energy markets.
For many Brexit supporters, the idea of British taxpayers helping to finance infrastructure projects across Europe represents a deeply uncomfortable development. They argue that Britain left the European Union to regain control over its money, laws and national priorities, not to resume making payments into European funding programmes.
The controversy comes just weeks before an important UK-EU summit in Brussels, where Burnham is expected to announce several agreements designed to strengthen economic cooperation.
Britain’s Money Could Go Towards Europe’s Poorer Regions
The controversy centres on a leaked draft statement reportedly prepared ahead of the November 20 UK-EU summit.
According to reports, Britain could be expected to make financial contributions towards reducing economic and social inequalities between different regions of the European Union.
The proposed arrangement is connected to Britain’s efforts to participate in the EU’s internal electricity market.
The draft statement reportedly says that the UK’s participation would require an appropriate financial contribution towards reducing economic and social disparities across European regions.
In practical terms, this could mean British taxpayers helping to finance infrastructure and development projects in less wealthy EU member states.
Countries such as Poland and Slovakia could potentially benefit from European infrastructure investment, although the precise destinations and amounts have not been finalised.
For critics, this raises an obvious question: why should British taxpayers contribute towards development projects in countries outside the United Kingdom when domestic communities are still struggling with underinvestment?
Why Does Brussels Want British Money?
The European Union’s position is based on the principle that access to certain parts of its internal market comes with financial obligations.
The EU has historically used funding programmes to reduce economic differences between wealthier and poorer member states.
These programmes support infrastructure, regional development, transport networks and economic investment.
Brussels argues that countries benefiting from access to its internal market should make an appropriate contribution towards maintaining economic balance.
The proposed British contribution would therefore be linked to the level of participation the UK receives in the European electricity market.
The government believes closer energy cooperation could bring economic benefits, improve electricity trading and strengthen Britain’s energy security.
However, critics argue that the financial conditions could turn what appears to be a straightforward trade agreement into another expensive commitment to Brussels.
A New Brexit Row Erupts
The leaked proposal has prompted criticism from politicians who believe Labour is gradually reversing the achievements of Brexit.
They argue that Britain should not have to pay into EU development schemes simply to secure access to an electricity market.
The controversy is particularly sensitive because Brexit supporters were repeatedly promised that leaving the European Union would allow Britain to spend its money according to domestic priorities.
They now fear that Burnham’s approach could recreate some of the financial obligations that existed before Brexit.
Conservative politicians have also questioned whether the government has properly explained the potential cost of its negotiations.
The government, however, maintains that it is building a closer relationship with Europe to strengthen Britain’s economy, protect domestic industries and create new opportunities.
The central disagreement is whether the potential benefits justify the financial commitments.
Burnham’s European Reset Could Cost Billions
The proposed regional development contribution is only one part of a much wider programme of cooperation between Britain and the European Union.
Burnham is expected to pursue agreements covering several important areas.
These include:
- A food and agricultural agreement designed to reduce post-Brexit trade barriers.
- Greater cooperation through the EU emissions trading system.
- A youth mobility arrangement allowing younger people to live, study and work across borders.
- Improved access to European energy markets.
- Further cooperation on economic security and international trade.
The government believes the wider package could generate substantial economic benefits.
Estimates reported by The Guardian suggest that the agreements could add approximately £17 billion, or 0.4 per cent, to Britain’s GDP.
Supporters argue that reducing trade barriers could help exporters, improve business confidence and lower costs for consumers.
However, the financial commitments attached to individual agreements remain an important issue.
British taxpayers will want to know exactly how much the arrangements will cost and whether the expected economic benefits will materialise.
Opposition Warns That Britain Is Paying to Get Back Into Europe
The controversy has created another opportunity for Brexit supporters to challenge Labour’s European strategy.
They argue that the government is gradually moving Britain closer to the European Union without obtaining a clear democratic mandate for a fundamental change in the country’s relationship with Brussels.
The proposed contribution towards poorer European regions has become a particularly powerful political symbol.
Critics believe it demonstrates how closer access to European markets could involve obligations that were previously associated with EU membership.
They also question whether Britain should be prioritising development funding abroad while domestic infrastructure, hospitals and local services require additional investment.
For Labour, the challenge is to demonstrate that the proposed arrangements represent a sensible economic decision rather than an unnecessary financial concession.
What About Britain’s Own Poorer Communities?
One of the strongest arguments against the proposal concerns Britain’s regional inequalities.
Many communities across the UK continue to face serious economic challenges.
Some former industrial areas have struggled with declining employment, inadequate transport connections and limited private investment.
In parts of northern England, Wales, Scotland and the Midlands, local leaders continue to demand more funding to improve infrastructure and create employment opportunities.
Critics argue that the government should concentrate its financial resources on these communities before committing additional money to development projects elsewhere in Europe.
They question why British taxpayers should help finance infrastructure in poorer EU regions when some British towns and cities are still waiting for major improvements.
However, supporters of the agreement argue that international economic cooperation can also benefit Britain.
Improved electricity trading, stronger supply chains and closer commercial relationships could generate economic opportunities that ultimately support British businesses and households.
The real question is whether those benefits will outweigh the financial contributions required.
Is This Another Step Towards Rejoining the EU?
The controversy has also intensified speculation about Burnham’s long-term ambitions for Britain’s relationship with Europe.
The Prime Minister has previously acknowledged that he could consider rejoining the European Union during his political lifetime.
He has also argued that Brexit caused more economic harm than good and that Britain should examine the options available for developing closer relations with European countries.
However, Burnham has insisted that he will respect the commitments made in Labour’s manifesto during the current parliamentary term.
Those commitments rule out returning to the single market, customs union and freedom of movement during this Parliament.
Nevertheless, his willingness to discuss a closer relationship has alarmed Brexit supporters.
They fear that individual agreements could gradually move Britain towards deeper integration without a single major political decision being put directly to voters.
Burnham argues that closer cooperation can deliver practical benefits without immediately reversing Brexit.
The Government Must Explain the Financial Cost
The most important issue now is transparency.
Before committing British money to European development arrangements, the government should explain the expected financial contribution, the duration of the commitment and the economic benefits Britain would receive.
It should also clarify whether the payments would be made from existing budgets or require additional public spending.
Without clear figures, taxpayers cannot properly judge whether the agreement represents good value for money.
The government must also explain what safeguards would prevent Britain from facing increasing financial demands in future negotiations.
A successful international agreement should provide measurable advantages for both sides.
British taxpayers should not be expected to accept open-ended financial commitments simply because ministers want to improve relations with Brussels.
Conclusion: Brexit Divisions Are Far From Over
Andy Burnham’s reported willingness to contribute British funding towards reducing economic inequalities in poorer EU countries has opened another major political battle over Brexit.
Supporters of closer European cooperation argue that financial contributions could be a reasonable price for improved access to important markets and stronger economic relationships.
Critics see something very different: a government risking British taxpayers’ money to rebuild relationships with Brussels while domestic communities continue to demand investment.
The proposed agreement is not yet a confirmed payment arrangement, and the precise financial details remain subject to negotiations.
Nevertheless, the controversy highlights the difficult choices facing Burnham as he attempts to reshape Britain’s relationship with Europe.
The Prime Minister must demonstrate that closer cooperation will deliver genuine benefits for ordinary British families, businesses and workers.
Ultimately, the question is not simply whether Britain should work more closely with the European Union.
It is whether the financial price of that relationship is justified.
For millions of people who voted for Brexit, the idea of sending British taxpayers’ money towards development projects in EU countries will be difficult to accept without a convincing explanation.
The coming Brussels negotiations could therefore become another defining moment in Britain’s unfinished Brexit debate.