Andy Burnham’s (Image: Getty)

Burnham also blames almost every ill afflicting Britain on the 2016 vote, even many of our EU neighbours are in a far worse state. Last week, Labour MP Stella Creasy, chair of the Labour Movement for Europe, once again claimed that leaving the EU has cost the UK between 6% and 8% of GDP. It’s a familiar Remainer claim, based on research by the pro-EU Centre for Economic Policy Research. But it relies on questionable assumptions and reaches an extraordinary conclusion.

Since Brexit, the UK economy has grown 13.2%. That’s disappointing but it’s better than France, up 12.8%, Italy, up 10.7%, and Germany, up a mere 7.2%. If Creasy’s figures were correct, the UK might have grown by as much as 21.2%. Does anyone seriously believe we would have grown at three times Germany’s rate if we’d stayed in the EU?

So apparently the Spitfire pilots defending our skies in the Battle of Britain, the Desert Rats defeating Rommel in North Africa and British troops storming the beaches on D-Day did so because they wanted us to rejoin the EU’s Erasmus+ programme, as Nandy suggested. It’s beyond madness.

Labour is coming up with all sorts of ridiculous arguments to justify reversing Brexit. There’s nothing honest about this process at all. We simply can’t believe a word they say.

Andy Burnham’s Labour Will Say Anything to Reverse Brexit – But This Is Truly Pathetic

Brexit remains one of the most controversial political decisions in modern British history. Almost a decade after the 2016 referendum, the debate over Britain’s relationship with the European Union continues to divide politicians, political parties and the public. While some people believe that Brexit has given Britain greater independence and control over its future, others argue that leaving the EU has created serious economic and political difficulties. Against this background, Andy Burnham and other Labour politicians face an increasingly difficult challenge: how to address the consequences of Brexit without appearing to undermine the democratic decision made by millions of British voters. However, any attempt to reverse Brexit through political manoeuvring, misleading promises or indirect arguments would be a serious mistake.

The British public voted to leave the European Union in 2016. It was a historic decision, and although the result was close, it represented the expressed preference of the majority of those who participated in the referendum. People voted Leave for different reasons. Some wanted greater national sovereignty, others were concerned about immigration, while many believed that Britain should have more control over its laws, borders and economic policies. These concerns were not necessarily shared by everyone, but they were genuine political issues that deserved to be taken seriously.

Since then, Brexit has become an easy target for politicians seeking to explain Britain’s economic problems. Whenever the country faces slow economic growth, rising living costs, difficulties in international trade or pressure on public services, some politicians are quick to point towards Britain’s departure from the EU. Brexit has undoubtedly created additional challenges, but it would be dishonest to suggest that every problem facing the United Kingdom is a direct consequence of leaving the European Union. Global economic pressures, domestic policy failures, the consequences of the pandemic and long-standing structural weaknesses have also played significant roles.

This is where Andy Burnham and the Labour Party must be particularly careful. Burnham is an influential Labour politician who has built a strong public profile through his position as Mayor of Greater Manchester. His political influence comes partly from his ability to communicate with ordinary voters and present himself as someone who understands the economic and social concerns of communities outside London. Nevertheless, political popularity should not become an excuse for making promises that cannot realistically be delivered.

There is an important difference between improving Britain’s relationship with Europe and attempting to reverse Brexit. The former is a practical political objective; the latter would reopen one of the most divisive constitutional arguments in the country. Britain can cooperate more closely with European countries, reduce unnecessary trade barriers, strengthen research partnerships and negotiate better arrangements without automatically seeking to rejoin the EU. These are legitimate discussions that deserve serious consideration.

However, politicians should be honest about what they actually want. If Labour believes that Brexit was a mistake and wishes to return Britain to the European Union, it should explain that position openly and allow voters to judge it. If the party does not intend to pursue rejoining, it should stop encouraging unrealistic expectations among those who regret leaving. Political ambiguity may be useful during an election campaign, but it is rarely a foundation for public trust.

The greatest problem with attempts to reverse Brexit is that they risk ignoring the democratic principle at the heart of the referendum. Democracy cannot simply mean accepting the results that political leaders personally support. It must also mean respecting outcomes that are inconvenient, disappointing or contrary to the preferences of those in power. The 2016 referendum was not a perfect process, and the arguments made during the campaign were frequently exaggerated. Nevertheless, the result was politically significant and cannot be dismissed simply because some politicians now believe that a different outcome would be better.

Of course, respecting the referendum does not mean that Britain must remain permanently isolated from Europe or refuse to reconsider its policies. Democracy is an ongoing process, and public opinion can change. If a future government genuinely wishes to seek EU membership again, it should present a clear programme, explain the economic and constitutional consequences and obtain a convincing democratic mandate. What would be unacceptable is attempting to achieve such a fundamental change through complicated negotiations or political language designed to conceal the real objective.

Labour must also recognise that many Leave voters were not necessarily motivated by hostility towards Europe. Some were frustrated with the political establishment and felt that their concerns had been ignored for years. They wanted a government that would listen to communities struggling with insecure employment, declining industries and inadequate public investment. For these voters, Brexit represented an opportunity to demand political change. Whether that opportunity has been fulfilled is another question, but their original concerns should not be treated with contempt.

Instead of constantly reopening the argument over EU membership, Labour should concentrate on delivering tangible improvements to people’s lives. Britain needs stronger economic growth, better productivity, affordable housing, improved public services and a more effective industrial strategy. It needs to create opportunities for young people, support businesses and address regional inequalities. These are the priorities that should determine the government’s political agenda.

Greater Manchester, for example, has enormous economic potential. Its future depends on investment in transport, education, infrastructure, technology and employment. Better cooperation with European partners could certainly contribute to this development. However, it would be misleading to suggest that every local economic challenge could be solved by reversing Brexit. Effective leadership requires practical solutions rather than political distractions.

Furthermore, Labour should understand that repeatedly discussing Brexit risks dividing the country once again. The referendum exposed deep divisions between generations, regions, social classes and political identities. Another prolonged campaign over EU membership could intensify these tensions at a time when Britain needs stability and national confidence. Political leaders should learn from the experience of the past rather than recreate the same arguments for short-term political advantage.

There is also a question of credibility. Voters are increasingly sceptical of politicians who appear to change their positions according to political circumstances. If Labour promises to respect Brexit while simultaneously encouraging expectations of a return to the European Union, people may reasonably question its sincerity. Such contradictory messaging could damage the party’s reputation and strengthen the belief that politicians are more interested in gaining power than delivering honest leadership.

Andy Burnham has an opportunity to contribute positively to this debate. He could demonstrate that a pro-European outlook does not necessarily require dismissing the referendum result. He could advocate practical cooperation, economic realism and constructive relations with Britain’s European neighbours. He could also challenge the government to explain how it intends to make Brexit work more effectively. That would be a much stronger political contribution than simply suggesting that the country should revisit an argument it has already spent years fighting over.

Ultimately, Britain needs a mature conversation about its future relationship with Europe. Neither blind enthusiasm for Brexit nor an emotional campaign to reverse it will provide all the answers. The country must acknowledge the difficulties created by leaving the EU while also recognising the democratic significance of the decision. Any future changes should be based on evidence, transparency and genuine public consent.

Andy Burnham and Labour should therefore resist the temptation to turn Brexit into another political weapon. If they believe closer European cooperation would benefit Britain, they should make that case honestly and explain exactly what it would involve. But they should not disguise a fundamental change of direction behind vague promises or political slogans.

The British public deserves more than another round of political manoeuvring. It deserves leaders who understand that democracy involves responsibility, honesty and respect for voters. Brexit may not have delivered everything its supporters expected, but that does not automatically justify trying to reverse it without a clear mandate. The real test of Labour’s leadership is not whether it can find another way to reopen the Brexit debate. It is whether it can focus on the country’s problems, offer realistic solutions and rebuild public confidence. Anything less would be a disappointing failure of political judgement.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.