Kerry Curson (left) and Yasmine Ratcliffe at Rose’s Cafe. (Image: Andy Stenning/Daily Express)
Andy Burnham’s patriotic constituents warned him he could face a “revolt” if he pushes for a “sneaky” Brexit U-turn. As the Express chatted with residents in Ashton-in-Makerfield near Wigan, in Greater Manchester, one retired police officer said a new EU referendum would be “an affront to democracy”. The Prime Minister sparked concern by revealing he wanted an “honest conversation” about bringing in free movement in a new deal with the EU, accepting that may require a new referendum. But on the streets of his constituency, which voted 65% to leave the EU in the 2016 Brexit referendum, locals told the Express that Burnham would get short shrift if he tried it.
Retired Greater Manchester Police John Pagett, 68, said that Burnham even being prime minister was an “affront to democracy” in the first place. The grandfather-of-two, of Hindley, near Wigan, served as a copper for 25 years and only took two weeks off sick during that time.
But he said opening borders and allowing free movement could put our creaking benefits system under even more strain. John said of any new EU referendum: “It’s an appalling idea. We already have one million people in this country out of work. We don’t need any more.
“Andy Burnham can’t lie straight in bed. I don’t believe a word he says. In fact, I think the way he came into Downing Street as PM, and now this EU idea, are affronts to democracy. I have a police pension and my state pension, but I am finding things tough with the cost of living and bills going up.
“Burnham should concentrate on that rather than worrying about closer ties to the EU. It was supposed to be a once-in-a-generation referendum – not a once-every-10-years referendum. I bought my own house. I worked all my life. I did all the right things for society. Burnham should be looking after people here who voted 65% to leave the EU.”
As she filled up the boot of her car with shopping, 70-year-old grandmother-of-three Linda was incandescent with rage when the Express suggested Burnham wanted a Brexit U-turn.
Reporter Chris Riches on the ground in Ashton-in Makerfield. (Image: Andy Stenning/Daily Express)
Asking us to withhold her surname, she exploded: “I have been furious seeing the boats packed with young men from war zones landing on the beaches of Dover. What if we had free movement? There could be millions. Labour want free movement because they are addicted to cheap labour, but how will that help the young people of this country ever find a job? It’s a disgrace.
“I never voted for Burnham, and if he pushes something like this through, I hope he could have a revolt on his hands and be out on his backside in the next General Election.” Best friends Kerry Curson, 38, and Yasmin Ratcliffe, 39, work together at Rose’s Café in Makerfield after Yasmin named the popular diner after her late mum who passed away in the Covid pandemic.
Married mother-of-three Yasmin said: “They said the EU referendum was a one-off, so I don’t want another one. This town clearly voted to leave, and maybe Andy Burnham should respect that as he’s our MP.
“We’ve only just had a by-election here and that saw people pitted against each other – Labour and Reform – and I don’t want another big vote. Saying that Andy never came into our café the whole time he was campaigning here so maybe he should swing by and try the best cooked breakfast around!”
Married co-worker Kerry pitched in from behind the counter and a stack of delicious-looking slices of lemon drizzle cake. She quipped: “Another referendum? No thanks!”
Retired Crane driver Terry Murray, 79, said: “No, I don’t think we should have another referendum. Regardless of who people voted for, we don’t need another one of those, thanks. I have been impressed with Burnham so far, and he could do a good job for Makerfield – but Labour couldn’t do a worse job than what they’ve done, can they?”
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.
Ex-copper John Pagett. (Image: Andy Stenning/Daily Express)
Terry Murray doesn’t want a new, divisive referendum. (Image: Andy Stenning/Daily Express)
The former coal-mining town near Wigan has voted in a Labour MP in every election for the last 120 years – and voted in Burnham in a by-election in June, with many floating voters backing him just to get rid of then PM Sir Keir Starmer. Furious retired teaching assistant Julie Clarke, 72, stood outside B&M in the Gerard Centre, in Makerfield, told us: “What a load of rubbish. What, open the borders and let millions of people in? What an idiot.
“This town voted for Brexit, as did I, and they won’t stand for it if Andy Burnham tries to either sneakily get closer ties to the EU, like freedom of movement, or if he goes all out with a full EU referendum. We voted for Brexit, and we want full Brexit – I don’t think we’ve even had that yet.”
Former Heinz factory worker Allan Bramhall, 57, said there would be pros and cons to holding a new referendum on the EU – but was sure that many Makerfield residents would be unimpressed with Burnham over it. Yet Allan admitted: “There would be pros and cons but I would vote to join the EU I reckon. Since Brexit, food prices feel they have increased, and farmers seem to be struggling more, instead of doing better.
“We used to talk about the ‘butter mountain’ with dairy farmers producing a surplus of goods but it feels we have gone the other since those days. We used to do so much trade with the EU and maybe we could again if we rejoined?”
Jean Johnson, 70, agreed with Allan, saying: “I think we should go back to the EU. It hasn’t been the success people hoped. Plus I travel abroad a lot on holiday, and it would make it a lot cheaper!”
Andy Burnham Faces Backlash in Makerfield over a Possible Brexit U-turn: A Political Challenge to Public Trust and Democratic Will
The debate over Brexit has once again become a major political issue in the United Kingdom, following reports that Andy Burnham is considering closer relations with the European Union, including the possibility of restoring freedom of movement. His position has sparked controversy among residents of Makerfield, where a significant majority voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. Some local people have warned that any attempt to reverse Brexit could provoke strong public opposition and even a political revolt against him. This controversy highlights the continuing divisions within British society over Brexit and raises important questions about democracy, political accountability, immigration and the relationship between national interests and international cooperation.
First of all, it is important to understand why Brexit remains such a sensitive subject in British politics. In June 2016, the United Kingdom held a historic referendum on whether to remain in or leave the European Union. Approximately 52 per cent of voters supported leaving, while 48 per cent voted to remain. The result represented a significant turning point in British history and reflected widespread dissatisfaction with the EU among many sections of the population. Supporters of Brexit believed that leaving the European Union would allow Britain to regain control over its borders, laws, economy and political decisions. For them, Brexit was not simply an economic decision but also a question of national sovereignty and democratic independence.
Makerfield, an area near Wigan in Greater Manchester, strongly supported Brexit, with approximately 65 per cent of voters choosing to leave in the 2016 referendum. Therefore, it is understandable that some residents feel uncomfortable with suggestions that the country might move closer to the European Union again. They believe that politicians have a responsibility to respect the outcome of the referendum, regardless of whether they personally agree with it. From their perspective, reopening the Brexit debate could undermine public confidence in the democratic process. If voters are repeatedly asked to reconsider decisions that have already been made, they may begin to question whether their votes genuinely influence government policy.
The concerns expressed by some Makerfield residents demonstrate the strength of these feelings. One retired police officer argued that holding another EU referendum would be an affront to democracy. He also expressed concerns that restoring freedom of movement could place additional pressure on public services and the welfare system. Similarly, other residents warned that closer relations with the EU might lead to increased immigration and greater competition for employment opportunities. Some believe that Britain should concentrate on domestic problems, particularly the rising cost of living, unemployment and financial difficulties facing ordinary households, rather than reopening complicated discussions about European integration.
These arguments reflect a broader concern among parts of the British electorate: politicians should prioritise the everyday needs of citizens. For people struggling to pay household bills, afford food and maintain financial security, debates about the European Union may appear distant from their immediate concerns. They may question why political leaders are discussing freedom of movement when many families are already experiencing economic uncertainty. Consequently, Burnham’s position could become politically damaging if voters believe that he is focusing more on international relations than on improving living standards at home.
However, opposition to a possible Brexit reversal does not represent the views of every resident in Makerfield. Interestingly, the same report also includes people who believe that Brexit has failed to deliver the benefits promised by its supporters. Some residents expressed disappointment with the economic consequences of leaving the European Union and suggested that Britain should consider rebuilding closer relationships with European countries. One former factory worker argued that food prices had increased and that farmers appeared to be facing greater difficulties. He also suggested that restoring trade relationships with the EU could create new economic opportunities. Another resident supported returning to the European Union, partly because it could make travelling abroad easier and less expensive.
These contrasting opinions demonstrate that the British public is not united on the question of Brexit. Although Makerfield voted overwhelmingly to leave in 2016, this does not necessarily mean that every resident continues to support the same position today. People’s attitudes can change as economic and political circumstances evolve. The experiences of businesses, farmers, workers and consumers may influence how they evaluate the consequences of Brexit. Therefore, it would be misleading to assume that an entire constituency shares one political opinion simply because of its referendum result.
An important question is whether closer cooperation with the European Union should automatically be described as a betrayal of Brexit. There is a distinction between reversing the decision to leave the EU and negotiating practical agreements that benefit the British economy. For example, Britain could seek stronger trade cooperation, improved scientific partnerships and agreements on security without necessarily becoming an EU member again or restoring complete freedom of movement. Such arrangements could help British businesses access European markets while preserving the country’s independent political status.
Supporters of closer EU relations argue that international cooperation is increasingly important in a globalised economy. The European Union remains one of Britain’s most important economic partners. Maintaining stable trade relationships can benefit manufacturers, exporters, farmers and consumers. Complicated customs procedures and regulatory differences may increase costs for businesses and create difficulties for companies that depend on international supply chains. Therefore, improving relations with European countries could potentially strengthen economic growth and create new opportunities for employment.
Nevertheless, any proposal involving freedom of movement requires careful consideration. Immigration is a particularly sensitive issue because it affects employment, housing, healthcare, education and public infrastructure. Supporters of freedom of movement argue that it allows workers to move between countries, helps businesses recruit employees and encourages cultural exchange. However, critics worry that rapid population growth may place additional pressure on already stretched public services, particularly in areas where housing and healthcare resources are limited. These concerns should not simply be dismissed as political hostility towards immigration. Instead, the government must address them through evidence-based policies and effective planning.
For Andy Burnham, the challenge is therefore not only economic but also political. As a prominent Labour politician representing an area that strongly supported Brexit, he must balance national economic interests with the expectations of his constituents. If he appears to ignore local concerns, he risks damaging his credibility and weakening the relationship between himself and the people he represents. The warning that he could face a revolt reflects the possibility that voters may withdraw their support if they believe their democratic choices are being disregarded.
Furthermore, this controversy could create difficulties for the Labour Party as a whole. Brexit has historically divided British political parties, and disagreements over European integration can easily reopen internal divisions. Some Labour supporters favour closer relationships with the EU, particularly because they believe cooperation could improve economic performance and protect workers’ rights. Others, especially in traditionally Leave-supporting communities, remain concerned that changing the country’s approach would alienate voters who helped determine the referendum result. If Labour cannot establish a clear and consistent position, political opponents may exploit these disagreements.
At the same time, Burnham should not be expected to avoid every controversial subject simply because it might be unpopular. Political leadership requires the ability to examine difficult questions, explain policy proposals and respond honestly to changing circumstances. The 2016 referendum took place in a different economic and political environment. Since then, Britain has experienced significant challenges, and it is reasonable for politicians to assess whether existing arrangements are delivering the expected results. However, reviewing a policy is not the same as secretly reversing it. Any major change must be communicated transparently, supported by convincing evidence and discussed openly with the public.
In my opinion, the most sensible approach would be to avoid presenting the debate as a simple choice between complete isolation from Europe and an immediate return to EU membership. Britain needs a balanced relationship with its European neighbours, one that protects national interests while recognising the economic advantages of cooperation. The government should prioritise practical agreements that improve trade, investment, security and scientific collaboration. If freedom of movement or a new referendum is being considered, the potential benefits and disadvantages must be clearly explained. Above all, citizens should have a meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions that could significantly affect their future.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Andy Burnham and the reactions from Makerfield illustrate that Brexit remains an unresolved political and emotional issue in the United Kingdom. While some residents strongly oppose any attempt to move closer to the European Union, others believe that Britain should reconsider its current relationship with Europe because of economic difficulties and lost opportunities. Neither perspective should be ignored. Burnham’s political future may depend on his ability to understand these competing concerns and demonstrate that he respects the democratic wishes of his constituents. Ultimately, successful leadership is not about pleasing everyone but about making responsible decisions, communicating honestly and maintaining public trust. Britain’s future relationship with Europe should be determined through open debate, reliable evidence and democratic participation rather than political pressure or ideological divisions.