French President Emmanuel Macron. (Image: Getty)
French President Emmanuel Macron has weighed in on Andy Burnham voicing openness to Britain rejoining the EU, as opposition parties hit back at the Prime Minister. In his first Labour Party conference speech as leader, Mr Burnham said Brexit had done “more harm than good” and promised to set out the options to the country around the time of a UK-EU summit, which he said would be in November.
Following his address, Mr Burnham told ITV News: “I can’t avoid the Europe question if I’m to put out a credible 10-year plan for Britain.” Asked whether that could mean sticking to the status quo, he said: “I don’t know what Europe will say about the different options. He added: “We’ve got to look at where we are, where they are and see what is a realistic and viable approach in all of the areas that we mentioned and then open up a conversation about it.” The Labour leader said his “instincts” were that “it is better to be closer” to the bloc “with all of the threats that we see around the world”.
Mr Burnham told the BBC he was not “leaping towards” any one option such as a referendum, saying: “I think we’d have to see where the options fell out, what people feel about them, and then, depending on what people seem to be pointing towards, what we then do.”
But pressed on whether he could promise a fresh referendum about rejoining after the next election, he said: “Yeah, things are possible.”
Following Burnham’s keynote speech, Macron voiced his support for Britain becoming part of the EU again during a press conference with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez on Wednesday, saying, in English, “Welcome back”.
He then added in French: “If the British want to come back and if the prime minister is moving in that direction, I think that is very good news, both for his country and for the Europeans.”
Mr Sanchez echoed the sentiment, saying: “We would open our arms [to the UK].”
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.
But last night Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch hit back, telling the Daily Mail: “Rejoining the EU won’t lower energy bills, it won’t bring back the businesspeople who’ve left, cut the welfare bill or fund our defence properly… Instead of trying to re-fight battles of the past, what we should be talking about is what we need to do to solve the genuine challenges our country is facing.”
Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK, said: “He says Brexit has done more harm than good but what’s done real harm is a Labour government that can’t deliver growth, can’t control migration and now wants to outsource the job to Brussels.”
Mr Tice said his paryy will “never let this betrayal go unchallenged”.
Reform leader Nigel Farage‘s criticism of the speech has so far centred on Burnham pledging to scrap the State Pension triple lock to fund his social care plan, but a senior reform official told Politico the Brexit architect will make a “major speech” about Burnham opening the door to a possible rejoining of the EU today (Thursday, October 1).
Lib Dem leader Ed Davey, who supports a closer relationship with Europe, called for action rather than words from Burnham.
In a post on X, he said: “Liberal Democrats have put forward concrete plans to boost our economy, strengthen our defences and cut people’s taxes by joining the single market and a customs union.
“Talk is cheap. Burnham must stop with all the ‘maybes’ and get negotiating that better deal for Britain today.”
Brexit War Erupts as Macron Weighs In on EU Debate With Two-Word Comment
A fresh political storm has erupted over Britain’s future relationship with the European Union after French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a striking two-word response to Andy Burnham’s suggestion that the United Kingdom could eventually rejoin the bloc.
“Welcome back.”
Those two words, spoken by Macron on 30 September 2026, have added a new international dimension to Britain’s increasingly heated Brexit debate. While supporters of closer European integration have welcomed the French president’s response, critics argue that it exposes the enormous political and practical challenges Britain would face if it attempted to reverse Brexit.
At the centre of the controversy is Burnham’s decision to reopen a question that has divided the country for more than a decade. The British Prime Minister has argued that leaving the European Union has done more harm than good and that the government must examine a range of options for the country’s long-term relationship with Europe.
These options could include closer economic cooperation, rejoining the EU single market or customs union, or eventually pursuing full membership.
Burnham has not announced a final decision to take Britain back into the EU. Nevertheless, his willingness to discuss that possibility has prompted criticism from Brexit supporters, who believe the referendum result should remain the foundation of British policy.
Macron’s response has now intensified the argument, raising a fundamental question: would Britain be welcomed back into Europe on terms it could accept, or would rejoining require compromises that reignite the divisions created by Brexit?
Macron’s Two Words That Changed the Tone of the Debate
Macron’s “Welcome back” comment was delivered during a joint appearance with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez in Madrid. The French president was responding to Burnham’s suggestion that Britain should consider whether full EU membership might once again be in its national interest.
Macron welcomed the prospect, describing a British return as good news for both the United Kingdom and the European Union.
His response was significant because it suggested that, at least politically, the idea of Britain eventually returning to the bloc was not automatically off the table.
For supporters of closer European integration, Macron’s words offered a symbolic invitation to reconsider the relationship between London and Brussels. They suggested that the years of confrontation following the 2016 referendum did not necessarily have to define relations between Britain and its European neighbours forever.
But the French president also made an important qualification.
He warned that Britain could not return to the EU while choosing only the advantages it wanted and rejecting the obligations it disliked. In his view, membership involves accepting the Union’s interconnected freedoms rather than selecting individual benefits while avoiding the wider commitments.
That warning may prove more consequential than the welcoming phrase itself.
Britain’s previous membership involved several special arrangements, including exemptions from the euro and the Schengen passport-free travel area. If the UK applied to rejoin, it could not assume that all its former privileges would automatically be restored.
The final terms would depend on negotiations with the EU and its member states.
Macron’s message was therefore both welcoming and firm: Britain could explore a return, but it would need to confront the full implications of membership.
Burnham Reopens Britain’s Brexit Question
Burnham’s comments at the Labour Party conference in Liverpool on 29 September marked a significant change in the tone of Britain’s political debate.
He argued that Brexit had failed to deliver the economic and political benefits promised by its supporters and that Britain needed a more realistic assessment of its future relationship with its largest nearby trading partner.
For years, Labour had attempted to move beyond the original referendum argument without promising to reverse the result. Its approach focused on improving cooperation with the EU while remaining outside the single market and customs union.
Burnham has gone further by refusing to rule out full membership in the longer term.
He has argued that Britain should examine all available options rather than treating the current arrangement as permanent. That could mean retaining the existing relationship, pursuing closer trading arrangements or eventually considering a return to the Union.
The distinction is important. Discussing possible future membership is not the same as announcing a plan to rejoin, and Burnham has not committed the government to an immediate referendum.
Nevertheless, his approach has reopened a politically sensitive debate that many British politicians had hoped to keep in the background.
The government faces a difficult balancing act. It wants to improve economic cooperation with Europe, but it must also address the concerns of voters who supported Brexit because they wanted greater control over national laws, borders and political decisions.
Burnham’s challenge is to explain why reconsidering Britain’s relationship with Europe would benefit the country without dismissing the democratic significance of the 2016 referendum.
Why Brexit Supporters Are Angry
For many Leave voters, Brexit was about national sovereignty as much as economics.
The referendum offered voters a choice between remaining in the European Union and leaving it. Leave won with approximately 52% of the votes cast, against 48% for Remain.
The result reflected a range of motivations. Some voters wanted greater control over immigration. Others prioritised parliamentary sovereignty, independent trade policy, fishing rights or the principle that decisions affecting Britain should be made by British institutions.
Not every Leave voter shared the same priorities, and public attitudes have changed since 2016. Some people who supported leaving now believe that the economic consequences have been disappointing. Others continue to believe that Brexit was necessary, regardless of the difficulties involved.
For the latter group, Burnham’s willingness to consider rejoining the EU risks reopening a decision they regarded as settled.
They may also question whether the government has a clear democratic mandate for such a fundamental change.
Burnham has said that the British public would ultimately decide the country’s future relationship with Europe. That assurance is important, but it does not eliminate the political controversy surrounding the proposal.
A decision to rejoin the EU would involve major economic, legal and constitutional implications. It would require a detailed programme, negotiations with European governments and a convincing explanation of why membership would serve Britain’s long-term interests.
For opponents, the central question is whether the government is trying to correct practical problems caused by Brexit or moving towards reversing the referendum result altogether.
For supporters, the question is whether Britain should reconsider its position when the economic and geopolitical circumstances have changed.
The Economic Argument for Returning to Europe
One of Burnham’s strongest arguments concerns the barriers British businesses face when trading with the European Union.
Since Brexit, companies have had to navigate additional customs procedures, regulatory requirements and other arrangements associated with trading outside the single market and customs union.
The effects vary by industry. Some companies have adapted to the new arrangements, while others have experienced increased paperwork, administrative costs and complications involving cross-border supply chains.
Smaller businesses can find these requirements particularly burdensome because they may not have the resources available to larger companies with dedicated compliance teams.
Supporters of closer European ties argue that reducing unnecessary barriers could improve trade, encourage investment and strengthen economic growth.
Burnham has identified several areas where a closer relationship could be pursued without immediately restoring full membership. These include aligning certain food standards, linking emissions trading systems and creating opportunities for young people to live, work and study across borders.
Such measures could form part of a practical reset in UK-EU relations.
However, they would not automatically require Britain to rejoin the EU. Many agreements can be negotiated between the Union and a non-member country, although the terms and benefits differ from those available through membership.
Full membership would bring broader access to EU institutions and arrangements, but it would also involve greater obligations.
The government must therefore explain what additional economic benefits membership would deliver beyond the agreements Britain could negotiate while remaining outside the bloc.
That comparison will be central to any serious national debate.
Macron’s Warning About Choosing Only the Benefits
Macron’s insistence that Britain cannot simply pick and choose among the EU’s freedoms highlights one of the most difficult aspects of a potential return.
The single market is built around the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. Its rules are designed to create a common economic area in which businesses can operate across borders under shared arrangements.
A country seeking deeper access to that market must accept corresponding obligations.
For Britain, that could mean difficult discussions about regulatory alignment, the movement of people, financial contributions and the role of European institutions.
The customs union presents a different set of questions. Rejoining it could reduce certain customs barriers but would also constrain Britain’s ability to pursue an entirely independent external tariff policy.
Full EU membership would require a wider negotiation covering the UK’s rights and responsibilities as a member state.
Macron’s message was that Britain could not expect to enjoy the benefits of membership while retaining every freedom it acquired through leaving.
That position is consistent with the EU’s wider approach to the integrity of its institutions and common market.
However, it also creates a challenge for British politicians who want closer economic ties but remain reluctant to accept obligations associated with membership.
Any proposal for a future relationship will need to explain exactly which benefits Britain seeks, what commitments it would accept and where it would be unwilling to compromise.
Without those details, the debate risks becoming a contest between broad promises and warnings rather than a serious examination of policy.
Could a Return to the EU Become a Reality?
Macron’s welcome does not mean Britain is on the verge of rejoining the European Union.
A return would require a formal political decision by the UK, an application and negotiations under the EU’s accession framework. Existing member states would have a decisive role in approving the terms.
Britain could not simply resume its former membership on exactly the same conditions as before Brexit.
The process would raise questions about budget contributions, regulatory obligations, participation in European institutions and the UK’s relationship with the euro and other common policies.
Negotiations could also take considerable time, depending on the scope of the proposed agreement and the political willingness of both sides.
The UK government has a more immediate objective: securing progress at the UK-EU summit scheduled for 20 November 2026. Burnham wants to pursue agreements covering areas such as food and drink trade, emissions trading and youth mobility.
Those negotiations could improve cooperation even if full membership remains a distant possibility.
They could also help clarify the limits of what Britain can achieve through a closer partnership while remaining outside the Union.
For now, the possibility of rejoining is part of a wider debate about the country’s long-term direction, not a completed policy decision.
The Political Consequences for Labour
Burnham’s approach could create both opportunities and risks for Labour.
Voters who believe Brexit has damaged the economy may welcome a government willing to examine closer relations with Europe. Businesses facing trade barriers may also support practical agreements that reduce costs and uncertainty.
But Labour risks alienating voters who regard Brexit as an important democratic decision and remain opposed to full membership.
That concern is especially significant in communities where Leave support was strong and where political trust has been shaped by years of debate about immigration, sovereignty and economic change.
Opposition parties are likely to use the controversy to challenge Labour’s position.
Brexit supporters may argue that Burnham is reopening a settled question without a clear mandate. Supporters of EU membership may counter that the government should be more ambitious and explain why Britain should remain outside the bloc.
Labour will need to distinguish between immediate negotiations designed to improve trade and the much larger question of full membership.
It will also need to demonstrate that its approach responds to practical problems rather than simply revisiting an old political argument.
Ultimately, the electoral consequences will depend on the policies Labour presents, how those policies affect people’s lives and how voters assess the alternatives offered by other parties.
Europe’s Own Interests Matter Too
The debate is not solely about what Britain wants.
The European Union would also have to consider whether a British return would serve its economic and political interests, how the UK’s membership would affect the balance within its institutions and what conditions should apply to a new accession.
Britain remains a major European economy with extensive commercial, security and diplomatic connections across the continent.
Closer cooperation could therefore benefit both sides in areas such as defence, energy, scientific research and trade.
At the same time, EU leaders are likely to insist that any future agreement respect the rules governing the single market and the obligations shared by member states.
Macron’s comments indicate a willingness to welcome the possibility of a British return, but they do not amount to a promise that negotiations would be straightforward.
Other European governments would have their own priorities, and agreement would be needed across the Union.
The final terms would depend on negotiations rather than the enthusiasm expressed by any single leader.
A New Chapter or Another Brexit Battle?
Macron’s two-word comment has become a symbol of a much larger political argument.
For supporters of closer European integration, “Welcome back” suggests that the divisions of the past decade do not have to determine Britain’s future forever.
For Brexit supporters, it highlights the possibility that politicians may seek to reverse a democratic decision that millions of voters regarded as fundamental.
Neither interpretation answers the practical questions facing the country.
Britain must decide what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, which economic problems it hopes to solve and what obligations it would be prepared to accept in return.
Burnham must explain whether his priority is a more effective partnership outside the bloc or a long-term path towards membership. Macron and other European leaders must clarify the terms they would expect Britain to accept if it chose that path.
The immediate negotiations over trade, energy and youth mobility may provide useful evidence about what closer cooperation can achieve. They will not, by themselves, settle the question of full membership.
The ultimate decision would require a clear democratic mandate, detailed negotiations and an honest assessment of the advantages and disadvantages.
Macron has offered Britain a warm public welcome. But his accompanying warning makes clear that the road back to Europe, should Britain choose it, would not be a simple return to the past.
The real question is whether the British public will decide that closer integration offers a better future than the current arrangement — and whether the terms available would justify such a historic change.