Norway is a member of the single market through the European Economic Area (EEA), but is not a full EU member state.

The nation therefore has no voting rights over the EU’s commercial rules.

Speaking to Politico, the Norwegian Prime Minister revealed that he would not recommend his country’s EU model to Britain, because of how different the two economies are.

Mr Støre said: “There’s an obvious democratic deficit in it, but pragmatically, all [Norwegian] Parliaments since 1995 have said this is a reasonable way of doing it.

“I don’t see Britain do that. I don’t see Canada do that.”

He recalled being asked by “British friends” about his country’s approach to the bloc, and how the UK can adopt the same strategy in negotiations.

Mr Støre revealed: “I can tell you after Brexit, British friends called me and said, tell us about the Norwegian way of doing it.

“And I said, if you left the EU because there was too much Brussels, don’t take the Norwegian version. Because here, basically we are taking most of their decisions, we implement them.

“But a country of five million people that has been a completely open economy, always adapting to standards, to be part of the global economy, very open economy, we can live with that.”

He urged Mr Burnham to “find his own solution” to seeking closer British ties to the European Union.

The Prime Minister is set to meet with the EU at a crunch summit later this month, where Mr Burnham is expected to announce a fresh food deal.

Mr Burnham has made the case for forging closer ties with the UK’s continental neighbours based on “bringing down household costs”.

He told the Sunday Mirror: “It pays to have a good relationship with your neighbours, and the practical deals we are agreeing with Europe will pay off for families across the UK.

“Cutting red tape on food coming in and out of the country will ease pressure on prices at the supermarket, while making life easier for farmers and food producers.”

He added: “This summit will show what we can achieve when we work together, but it doesn’t need to be the end of our ambition.

“Working more closely with Europe could drive growth, make our country safer and give us more tools to tackle illegal migration. That’s a conversation worth having.”

On Sunday, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy announcedannounced that the UK will rejoin Europe’s Erasmus+ scheme, allowing young Britons to study, train or get work experience in the European Union.

She told GB News: “What we have announced this weekend is that we’re widening participation in that scheme to make sure that young people from towns like Wigan, where I’m from, get the chance to go and do cultural exchanges with counterparts across Europe.”

Andy Burnham Warned NOT to Rejoin the EU Single Market by Norway’s Prime Minister: A Warning for Britain’s Post-Brexit Future

Britain’s future relationship with the European Union has once again become a major political issue following a warning from Norway’s Prime Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, to British Prime Minister Andy Burnham. Støre has advised the United Kingdom against adopting Norway’s model of relations with the European Union, arguing that it could leave Britain following European rules without having sufficient influence over the decisions behind them. His comments have created a fresh debate about Brexit, national sovereignty, economic cooperation and the political direction of the United Kingdom.

The warning comes at a particularly important moment. Andy Burnham has expressed a desire to reconsider Britain’s long-term relationship with the European Union, arguing that Brexit has caused economic difficulties and weakened the country’s position in Europe. Although he has not committed to immediately rejoining the EU Single Market, he has indicated that different options should be considered as part of a wider review of Britain’s post-Brexit future.

Norway’s experience offers an interesting example of the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining close economic relations with the EU without becoming a full member. Norway is not an EU member state, but it participates in the European Single Market through the European Economic Area (EEA). This arrangement allows Norwegian businesses to access the EU’s internal market and benefit from relatively free movement of goods, services, capital and people.

However, there is an important political disadvantage. Norway must adopt a substantial proportion of EU regulations to maintain access to the Single Market, even though it does not have the same voting rights as full EU member states when those regulations are decided. This situation has become the central point of Støre’s warning to Britain.

In an interview with POLITICO on 9 November 2026, the Norwegian Prime Minister explained that Britain should not necessarily follow the Norwegian approach. He recalled that British politicians had previously contacted him after Brexit to ask about Norway’s relationship with the EU. His response was that Britain should think carefully before copying the model because Norway has to accept and implement many European decisions without having a direct vote on them.

Støre’s argument is based on the principle that economic access and political influence are not always the same thing. Norway benefits from participating in the European Single Market, but it must also accept many rules established by the EU. In other words, it enjoys significant economic cooperation while having limited influence over the development of the regulations governing that cooperation.

This creates a difficult question for Britain. One of the central arguments behind Brexit was that the United Kingdom wanted to regain control over its laws, borders and economic policies. If Britain were to rejoin the Single Market without becoming a full EU member, it could find itself accepting many European rules while having limited influence over their creation. Such an arrangement could appear politically contradictory to those who supported Brexit because of concerns about national sovereignty.

Nevertheless, supporters of closer relations with Europe argue that economic cooperation should be considered separately from political membership. The EU remains Britain’s largest neighbouring economic bloc and an important trading partner. British companies depend on European markets for exports, investment and supply chains. Reducing trade barriers could therefore help businesses become more competitive and improve economic growth.

Since leaving the European Union, British exporters have faced additional administrative requirements, customs procedures and regulatory complications when trading with European countries. Smaller businesses, in particular, can struggle with the costs of complying with different rules and documentation requirements. Rebuilding closer economic links could reduce some of these difficulties and provide greater certainty for businesses.

Another important consideration is employment and freedom of movement. Membership of the Single Market through the EEA generally involves accepting the free movement of people. This means that citizens of participating countries can move to live and work across the relevant economic area under agreed rules. For Britain, however, this issue remains politically sensitive because immigration was one of the most important arguments during the 2016 Brexit referendum.

Andy Burnham therefore faces a complicated political challenge. He must consider the economic advantages of closer European integration while recognising that a significant section of the British population remains concerned about immigration and national sovereignty. Any proposal involving the return of free movement would require careful public explanation and could create divisions within the Labour Party as well as among voters.

Furthermore, the Norway model is not the only possible arrangement available to Britain. Other approaches include negotiating closer bilateral agreements, developing a closer customs relationship, participating in selected European programmes or eventually applying to rejoin the European Union as a full member. Each option would involve different economic benefits, political obligations and legal consequences.

Former EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has also warned that Britain cannot simply select the advantages of the Single Market while rejecting its fundamental conditions. The EU’s internal market is built around four freedoms: the movement of goods, services, capital and people. According to Barnier, countries seeking access cannot choose only the freedoms that suit their domestic political interests.

This position highlights the difficulty of negotiating a special arrangement for Britain. The European Union has little incentive to offer the United Kingdom favourable access without requiring it to respect the same fundamental principles that apply to other participating countries. From the EU’s perspective, allowing Britain to enjoy the benefits of membership without accepting its obligations could undermine the integrity of the Single Market.

There are also differences between the economies of Norway and Britain. Norway has a population of approximately 5.6 million and a relatively small, highly open economy. Britain, by contrast, has a population of more than 68 million and a much larger and more diverse economic structure. Its financial services, manufacturing industries, agricultural sector and international trading relationships create different challenges.

Støre has therefore suggested that Norway’s arrangements should not automatically be treated as a suitable solution for the United Kingdom. A system that works for a smaller economy may not necessarily meet the political and economic requirements of a much larger country.

The debate also raises questions about Britain’s international position. A closer relationship with the EU could strengthen cooperation on security, scientific research, energy, environmental protection and international supply chains. European countries face many shared challenges, including geopolitical instability, technological competition and the need to secure essential resources. Cooperation could provide benefits that extend beyond trade.

However, Britain must also consider its relationships with countries outside Europe. One of the arguments made by Brexit supporters was that leaving the EU would allow the UK to develop more independent trade agreements with global partners. Any new European arrangement would need to be assessed alongside Britain’s wider international economic strategy.

Ultimately, the disagreement between Andy Burnham and Norway’s Prime Minister is not simply about whether Britain should return to the Single Market. It concerns the wider question of what kind of relationship the United Kingdom wants with Europe after Brexit. Should Britain prioritise economic integration, political independence or a compromise between the two?

In conclusion, Jonas Gahr Støre’s warning provides an important lesson from Norway’s experience. Access to the European Single Market can bring considerable economic advantages, but it also involves accepting obligations and regulations without enjoying the full political influence of EU membership. For Andy Burnham, the challenge is to find an arrangement that improves Britain’s economic prospects without creating unacceptable political contradictions.

Britain’s future relationship with Europe will require careful negotiation, honest public discussion and a realistic assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of every available option. The central lesson is that there is no cost-free solution to Brexit. Whatever direction the country chooses, it must understand that closer economic integration will inevitably involve political and regulatory compromises.