Andy Burnham announced his Brexit plan at his party conference (Image: Getty)

Andy Burnham’s decision to re-open old wounds around Brexit will go down in history as one of the dumbest decisions any Prime Minister has ever taken. Labour MPs are increasingly nervous, and there are reports of open warfare within the Cabinet. One Minister is reported to have asked: “Why … have you opened this can of worms?”

The Prime Minister announced his plan at Labour’s annual conference, when he said he would consult the British people about a new long-term relationship with the EU.

In later briefings to journalists from his staff, it became clear that this new relationship could stretch to fully re-joining the EU – which Mr Burnham has said he supports, although he’s also conceded that it could only happen if British voters actually supported the idea.

But it took a while for all of this to sink in. There’s a small group of fanatics who want nothing more than to start arguing about Brexit all over again. In fact, some of them, such as former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell, never stopped.

But most people remember the Brexit arguments with horror. And that includes Labour MPs.

All the talk of a “meaningful vote”, a possible second referendum, late-night sittings of the House of Commons – it was a dreadful period for politicians and for the UK. We looked to the rest of the world like we had no idea what we were doing.

Boris Johnson won a huge election victory in 2019 with the slogan “get Brexit done”.

Does this mean that voters were massively supportive of Brexit? Well, some were. But the slogan worked because pretty much the entire nation wanted to get Brexit done and over with. We wanted to put the arguments to bed and move on to other things. Even remainers felt that way.

Andy Burnham often sounds like he wants to return the UK back to the 1970s, when the unions ruled the roost and Margaret Thatcher wasn’t yet in power.

But what’s almost as bad is his plan to take us back to 2017 – when poor old Theresa May, as Prime Minister, did the best she could to lead a nation, and a Parliament, torn in two by Brexit disagreements.

There are some signs that the Prime Minister has seen sense. He may be backtracking on his plan to reverse Brexit.

It would be a humiliating u-turn, but it would still be better than the alternative. The last thing the British public wants is another long, angry and boring row about Europe.

Andy Burnham’s Plot to Reverse Brexit Has Blown Up in His Face – It’s an Historic Mistake

Andy Burnham is facing growing political criticism after reopening the debate over Britain’s relationship with the European Union and suggesting that the country could eventually reverse Brexit. His proposals have sparked controversy among Conservative politicians, Reform UK supporters and even some Labour figures, raising questions about whether his government is risking another period of political division.

Burnham has argued that Brexit has damaged Britain’s economy and failed to deliver many of the benefits promised during the 2016 referendum campaign. He believes the country should consider closer economic cooperation with Europe, including potentially rejoining the single market, the customs union or even the European Union itself. However, critics warn that reopening such a divisive issue could create serious political and economic uncertainty.

The Prime Minister’s position represents a significant change in Britain’s political debate. For years, successive governments avoided discussing whether the country should reconsider its departure from the EU. Burnham has now broken that political silence, arguing that Britain needs an honest assessment of the consequences of Brexit and a more ambitious long-term relationship with European partners.

However, his proposals have encountered resistance. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Reform UK politicians have questioned why the government should revisit a decision made through a national referendum. They argue that voters were promised greater national control over immigration, trade and legislation, and that politicians should respect the result rather than attempt to reverse it.

One of the biggest concerns is the possibility that closer European integration could require Britain to accept new obligations. Rejoining the single market or customs union would involve difficult negotiations over regulations, trade arrangements and the movement of people. Full EU membership would be even more complicated, requiring agreement from all 27 member states.

European leaders have also made clear that Britain could not simply return on whatever terms it preferred. French President Emmanuel Macron has previously indicated that the UK could not expect to enjoy the benefits of membership while choosing which responsibilities to accept.

Economic considerations are central to the controversy. Supporters of Burnham’s approach argue that Brexit created additional trade barriers, increased administrative costs and weakened economic cooperation. Closer relations with Europe could reduce paperwork, improve access to markets and encourage investment.

Nevertheless, critics question whether these potential benefits would outweigh the costs of renegotiating Britain’s relationship with Brussels. Businesses require stability and clear rules, and prolonged political uncertainty could discourage investment. Companies may also face new regulatory requirements depending on the final agreement.

Immigration is another particularly sensitive issue. Burnham has suggested that closer cooperation with Europe could help Britain manage migration more effectively. However, any discussion of freedom of movement is likely to generate strong opposition among voters who supported Brexit partly because they wanted greater control over immigration.

The political consequences could extend beyond the Conservative Party. Labour itself contains different opinions about Britain’s future relationship with Europe. Some MPs support closer integration because they believe it would improve economic growth, while others fear that reopening Brexit could alienate voters in constituencies that supported leaving the EU.

This creates a difficult challenge for Burnham. He must convince the public that his proposals are based on Britain’s economic interests rather than an attempt to reverse the referendum simply because he disagrees with its outcome.

Furthermore, the government has not committed to immediately rejoining the European Union. Burnham has indicated that the immediate priority is to improve relations and examine available options. Any major decision about the country’s long-term relationship with Europe would involve further political debate and negotiations.

The upcoming UK-EU summit on 20 November 2026 is therefore particularly important. Discussions are expected to cover trade in food and agricultural products, energy cooperation, emissions trading, youth mobility and migration. These negotiations could provide an indication of how far both sides are prepared to go in rebuilding their relationship.

Ultimately, Burnham’s European strategy represents a major political gamble. Supporters see it as an opportunity to address the economic consequences of Brexit and improve Britain’s international position. Opponents see it as a potentially divisive attempt to reopen an issue that dominated British politics for years.

Whether his proposals become a historic mistake or an important step towards economic cooperation will depend on the details of any agreement, the costs involved and the reaction of the British public.

For now, one thing is clear: Brexit remains far from settled in British politics, and Andy Burnham’s decision to reopen the debate has placed his government at the centre of another national controversy.