Andy Burnham has promised the British public will be the “boss” in any talks with the European Union about a future relationship.
It came as the Prime Minister announced on Monday a delayed UK-EU summit – a chance to push for a better post-Brexit trading agreement – will take place on November 20.
Article continues below
He said after the summit in Brussels next month, there should be “a serious dialogue about the different options for our relationship in the long-term”.
Mr Burnham said: “At every stage, the British public will be the boss, and I am clear that public opinion currently supports a pragmatic approach like the one I am suggesting.”
The Prime Minister told MPs, however, he would stand by Labour’s 2024 manifesto red lines on Brexit not to rejoin the bloc’s single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement. It means any major change to the UK-EU relationship is unlikely before the next general election – currently scheduled for 2029.
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. More info
But ahead of the UK-EU summit next month, the PM made clear he would push for agreement on a number of areas. The two sides are expected to sign a new food and drink agreement, a youth mobility scheme and a pact on emissions trading which the Prime Minister hopes could provide a £10 billion boost to the economy.
Mr Burnham said the upcoming summit “presents an opportunity to make progress on two crucial issues: boosting UK growth and controlling illegal immigration”.
“The summit will also be an opportunity to raise our concerns about Made in Europe and it is clear to me that there is an opportunity to make progress in all of these areas,” he said. “Together, these deals will add the equivalent of over £10 billion per year to the UK economy by 2040, with the potential to add significantly more.”
Mr Burnham added: “If we are serious about promoting growth, controlling immigration, upholding our values and security, it is a conversation we must have. Sticking with the status quo is not good enough for Britain.
“Worse, it would be a major dereliction of duty to turn away. We need to take a calm, clear-eyed, rational look at the world as it is today to consider what is best for our country.”
The UK-EU summit had been due to take place over the summer, but was delayed due to Keir Starmer’s resignation from Downing Street.
As the summit was announced on Monday, António Costa, the European Council President, said: “The European Union and the United Kingdom are like-minded partners, united by common values and shared interests.
“Our security and prosperity are closely intertwined, making a strong partnership between us essential. By deepening our cooperation, we can strengthen our ability to address the challenges of our time, strengthen our resilience and promote stability in Europe and beyond.”
Andy Burnham Vows British Public Will Be ‘Boss’ in Post-Brexit EU Relationship Talks
Andy Burnham has vowed that the British public will remain firmly in control of any future changes to the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, insisting that ordinary voters must have the final say over decisions that could shape the country for generations.
His comments come as the debate over Brexit returns to the centre of British politics, with growing questions about trade, immigration, economic growth and whether the existing arrangements between London and Brussels are delivering the benefits voters were promised.
Burnham has argued that Britain needs an honest conversation about its future relationship with Europe. However, he has also sought to reassure voters that discussions with EU leaders should not be interpreted as an attempt to impose changes on the public without democratic consent.
The message is politically significant. Almost a decade after the 2016 referendum, Brexit remains an issue capable of dividing communities, parties and families. Any politician seeking to reopen the debate must confront the difficult balance between addressing economic concerns and respecting the decision made by voters.
For Burnham, the challenge is to demonstrate that Britain can explore new opportunities without undermining public confidence in the democratic process.
The Public Must Have the Final Say
Burnham’s promise that the British public will be the “boss” reflects his argument that decisions about the country’s future cannot be made solely by politicians negotiating behind closed doors.
He believes voters should be given clear information about the advantages, disadvantages and potential costs of different arrangements with the European Union.
That could include examining whether closer cooperation would help British businesses, improve trade and make it easier for the country to attract investment.
However, any proposal involving significant changes to the UK’s relationship with Europe would also raise questions about immigration rules, regulatory standards and the extent to which Britain would need to follow common European arrangements.
Burnham’s emphasis on public consent is therefore an attempt to place democratic accountability at the heart of the debate.
Rather than presenting closer European relations as an automatic objective, he has argued for an evidence-based discussion about what would work best for Britain.
Supporters of this approach say the country should be able to reconsider its options as economic circumstances change. They argue that a decision made in 2016 should not prevent future governments from examining whether different arrangements could improve living standards.
Critics, however, warn that repeatedly reopening Brexit could create uncertainty for businesses and deepen political divisions.
For those voters who supported leaving the EU, the referendum was a clear instruction to establish an independent course. They may view attempts to deepen integration as a failure to respect that decision, even if politicians insist that no final outcome has been predetermined.
Burnham will need to address those concerns if he wants the public to engage seriously with the possibilities he is discussing.
Why Britain’s Relationship With Europe Matters
The economic relationship between Britain and the European Union remains one of the most important considerations in the post-Brexit debate.
The EU is a major trading partner for the UK, and businesses on both sides continue to depend on the movement of goods, services, investment and specialist workers.
Since Brexit, companies have had to navigate new arrangements for parts of their trade with the European market. The effects vary considerably between industries, with some businesses facing additional paperwork, regulatory requirements and administrative costs.
Supporters of closer cooperation argue that reducing unnecessary barriers could make it easier for British firms to export products and expand into European markets.
They also suggest that a more predictable relationship could encourage investment by reducing uncertainty about future trading conditions.
However, the potential benefits would depend on the specific arrangements negotiated. Improved access to European markets would not necessarily mean the removal of every barrier, and some forms of closer integration could require Britain to accept common rules or other obligations.
The political question is whether the practical advantages would outweigh the compromises involved.
Burnham’s approach suggests that the public should be presented with those choices rather than being asked to accept broad promises without understanding the consequences.
That would require politicians to explain not only what a proposed agreement might achieve but also what Britain could be required to give up in return.
Immigration Remains a Major Obstacle
No serious discussion of Britain’s relationship with the EU can avoid immigration.
One of the central promises of the Brexit campaign was that leaving the European Union would allow the UK to regain control over immigration policy.
For many voters, that promise was closely connected to concerns about population growth, pressure on housing, public services and competition for jobs.
Brexit supporters argue that Britain must retain the freedom to decide who can enter the country and under what conditions.
Those who favour closer cooperation with Europe counter that international agreements can help governments manage migration and address practical problems that cannot easily be resolved through unilateral action.
The debate becomes particularly difficult when proposals involve the single market or other arrangements associated with greater freedom of movement.
Any such proposal would require careful examination of its economic implications, its effects on immigration and its political acceptability.
Burnham’s insistence that the public must remain in control is therefore especially important in this area. Voters are likely to demand clarity about whether closer relations would change the rules governing European citizens who want to live or work in Britain.
They may also want assurances that the government would retain effective control over its borders and the ability to enforce its immigration policies.
A credible discussion would need to address these questions directly rather than treating immigration as a secondary consideration.
A Delicate Challenge for Labour
Burnham’s comments also raise questions about Labour’s wider political strategy.
The party has supporters with very different views on Brexit. Some favour a closer relationship with the European Union, while others believe the referendum result must be respected and that Britain should concentrate on making its current arrangements work.
That division creates a difficult task for Labour politicians.
Moving towards closer integration could appeal to voters and businesses concerned about trade barriers. At the same time, proposals perceived as reversing Brexit could alienate people who believe leaving the EU was an essential expression of national sovereignty.
Burnham’s emphasis on public consent offers a possible way to navigate that divide.
By insisting that voters must be the “boss”, he can argue that the debate should be open and democratic rather than driven by political assumptions.
However, the approach also creates an obligation to explain exactly how public involvement would work.
Would voters be consulted through parliamentary debates, public consultations, a general election or a referendum on a specific agreement? Each option would have different implications, and no single mechanism should be assumed without a clear proposal.
The timing of any major decision would also matter. A government would need to establish what it wanted to negotiate before asking the public to judge the likely consequences.
Without that detail, assurances about democratic control could remain a political message rather than a clearly defined process.
Nigel Farage and the Brexit Divide
The debate is likely to draw a response from Nigel Farage and other politicians who have built their political identities around Britain’s departure from the European Union.