David Miliband has said Brexit was a “unilateral declaration of political impotence” as he called on Andy Burnham to reverse the decision to leave the EU.
Article continues below
In a major intervention the former Foreign Secretary – whose brother Ed currently has the job – said Brexit reduced the UK to “a bobbing cork in the sea”.
He accused Keir Starmer of lacking a vision for resetting relations with Europe – but said he backs Andy Burnham to do so. Earlier this week the Prime Minister refused to rule out reversing Brexit in Labour’s next manifesto.
Article continues below
Mr Miliband said the UK must seek a “structured, organised, institutionalised relationship with the EU”, telling The Independent: “We have got to join together in a new project for European security and prosperity.”
The former Labour leadership contender, who was Foreign Secretary from 2007 to 2010, said Brexit had caused “exactly the daily anguish” he and fellow Remainers predicted. He added: “Britain is weaker because we’ve cut ourselves off economically and issued this unilateral declaration of political impotence.”
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. More info
Mr Miliband added: “We have made ourselves weaker economically and politically because we’re not influential. Britain is weaker, Europe is weaker and the West is weaker. The EU is less well balanced and we have left Europe without an absolutely critical anchor and contributor.”
Although rejoining the bloc would be tricky, he said, Europe is becoming more flexible. He said although the full membership Britain had before Brexit is gone, Mr Burnham should seek to fashion a new deal.
Mr Miliband said a “new shared model” would have to be drawn up to undo the damage caused by leaving the EU Customs Union and Single Market.
Article continues below
“It is the cheapest way to boost the economy, the fastest way to unite Europe in the face of security threats and the best way to get leverage on a global system that no longer has an American anchor. All politics is local, but local today is not confined to your locality or postcode. We cannot afford to be provincial about it. We have got to be be engaged.”
Asked if he thought Mr Burnham would do this more effectively than Mr Starmer, Mr Miliband said: “I do – because he has said he will. When Andy says we have got to be bold and ambitious, he doesn’t say things by accident. We should take him at his word.”
Earlier this week Mr Burnham told reporters that discussions about rejoining the EU are “for another day”. He said: “Our focus at the moment is on a UK/EU summit which we hope will take place later this year.
Article continues below
“My immediate priority is to build on the good work that Keir did in rebuilding bridges. Because those bridges were broken in the early part of this decade. And Keir did a good job in re-establishing that relationship.
“What we have got to do now is go to the next level in terms of reaching practical agreement that will further boost the British economy. And those issues are the substance of the summit alongside EU requests around youth mobility.”
One thing at the top of the agenda, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood told MPs last week, will be data sharing. The UK lost access to the Eurodac migration database and the Schengen Information System (SIS) criminal database when it left the EU.
Article continues below
Ms Mahmood told the Home Affairs Committee: “We definitely talk to European colleagues about data sharing, for law enforcement and immigration purposes. Again, it would be wrong for me to try to get ahead of discussions that may or may not be happening at the UK-EU summit, but, from a Home Office perspective, rest assured that data sharing is the first item on the agenda whenever I discuss these things with the European Commission and others.”
Brexit Was a ‘Declaration of Political Impotence’, Says David Miliband in Plea to Prime Minister
Former British foreign secretary David Miliband has delivered a forceful assessment of Brexit, describing Britain’s decision to leave the European Union as a “unilateral declaration of political impotence” and urging Prime Minister Andy Burnham to pursue a much closer relationship with Europe.
Miliband’s intervention has reignited the debate over Britain’s future outside the EU, a decade after the 2016 referendum transformed the country’s political direction. He argues that Brexit has weakened Britain’s economic prospects and reduced its influence at a time when international cooperation has become increasingly important.
His comments also place fresh pressure on Burnham, who has inherited the challenge of rebuilding Britain’s relationship with European neighbours while managing a politically sensitive debate over whether the country should ever seek to rejoin the bloc.
For Miliband, the central issue is no longer simply whether leaving the EU was the right decision in 2016. It is whether Britain can afford to remain detached from European institutions as economic competition, international security threats and geopolitical uncertainty reshape the world.
Miliband delivers a blunt verdict on Brexit
Miliband, who served as foreign secretary between 2007 and 2010, has long argued that leaving the EU would reduce Britain’s influence over decisions affecting its economy and security.
In a recent interview, he described the post-Brexit United Kingdom as “a bobbing cork in the sea”, suggesting that the country had become more vulnerable to international developments because it had weakened its connections with the European bloc.
He argued that Brexit had created practical difficulties for British businesses, travellers and industries that had previously benefited from closer integration with European markets.
Miliband pointed to the experiences of exporters facing additional administrative requirements, travellers encountering separate border arrangements and fishing communities whose expectations about the benefits of Brexit had not always been fulfilled.
His criticism was particularly focused on the geopolitical consequences. Britain, he argued, had surrendered some of the collective influence it once exercised through EU membership without establishing an equally powerful alternative arrangement.
The former foreign secretary believes that the UK’s ability to shape European decisions has diminished, leaving the country less influential economically and politically.
These are strong judgments, and Brexit’s overall impact remains contested. Supporters of leaving argue that Britain regained control over important policy areas, including immigration and regulation, and acquired greater freedom to negotiate trade agreements independently. They also contend that the EU’s political structure can restrict national decision-making.
The disagreement reflects a fundamental difference in how sovereignty is understood. One view emphasises the freedom to make decisions independently. The other argues that countries can exercise greater practical influence by participating in collective institutions, even when doing so requires compromise.
Miliband’s position is that Britain gained formal independence in certain areas but lost valuable opportunities to shape decisions made by its closest neighbours.
A direct challenge to Andy Burnham
Miliband’s comments were also a challenge to Burnham’s government to reconsider how Britain approaches Europe.
He criticised former prime minister Keir Starmer for lacking the ambition to establish a more comprehensive relationship with the EU. By contrast, Miliband expressed confidence that Burnham could pursue a more ambitious approach, pointing to the prime minister’s stated willingness to be bold in Britain’s dealings with Europe.
Burnham has previously indicated that discussions about full EU membership are not an immediate government priority. His stated focus has been on practical agreements that could improve economic cooperation and build on efforts to repair relations between London and Brussels.
That position reflects the political difficulties surrounding Brexit. Rejoining the EU would be a major undertaking involving negotiations over membership terms, public consent and the balance between national decision-making and shared European rules.
Even a closer relationship short of membership would require difficult choices. Participation in particular European arrangements could involve accepting common standards, agreeing to shared obligations or negotiating compromises over market access.
Burnham must therefore balance the potential economic benefits of closer cooperation against the political risks of reopening one of the most divisive issues in recent British history.
Miliband’s argument is that the government should not allow those political sensitivities to prevent it from considering what arrangement would best serve the country over the long term.
For the prime minister, the challenge is to demonstrate that closer European cooperation can deliver concrete benefits without promising changes that cannot be achieved quickly or without significant negotiation.
The economic cost of leaving the European Union
Economics remains one of the most important elements of the Brexit debate.
Before the referendum, supporters and opponents offered sharply different predictions about what leaving the EU would mean for Britain’s trade, investment and economic performance. Since withdrawal, businesses have had to adapt to new customs procedures, regulatory requirements and arrangements governing the movement of goods.
For some companies, these changes have increased administrative costs and made European trade more complicated. Smaller exporters can be particularly vulnerable because they may lack the resources to manage additional paperwork and compliance requirements.
Other businesses have adapted to the new arrangements, while supporters of Brexit argue that the UK has gained the freedom to pursue policies tailored to its own economic priorities.
The broader economic picture is complicated by factors beyond Brexit, including the pandemic, the energy-price shock, international conflicts, weak productivity growth and changes in global trade.
It would therefore be misleading to attribute every economic difficulty experienced by Britain since 2020 to leaving the EU. Equally, the existence of other challenges does not mean Brexit’s effects should be ignored.
Miliband believes that closer economic integration with Europe could help Britain strengthen trade and investment. A more structured relationship could reduce some barriers, improve cooperation and give businesses greater certainty about the rules governing their largest nearby market.
However, the precise benefits would depend on the terms negotiated. Greater access to European markets could come with obligations, and the EU would have its own interests to protect.
Any government seeking a new agreement would need to explain the likely gains, the costs involved and the extent to which proposed changes would address the difficulties faced by British businesses.
Why geography still matters
One of Miliband’s central arguments is that Britain cannot escape the importance of its geographical position.
The UK remains closely connected to continental Europe through trade, travel, investment, energy networks and shared security concerns. Political separation does not remove those practical connections.
Miliband has rejected the idea that Britain can simply disregard its European neighbours because it is no longer an EU member. He argues that the country’s prosperity and security depend partly on its ability to cooperate with countries facing many of the same challenges.
Russia’s war against Ukraine, changing international trade patterns and uncertainty surrounding the future of transatlantic relations have strengthened the case for European coordination in several areas.
Britain remains a major NATO member and has significant diplomatic, intelligence and military capabilities. Nevertheless, Miliband believes that its departure from the EU has weakened the broader framework through which it once influenced European economic and political decisions.
His argument is not necessarily that Britain has lost all international influence. Rather, it is that influence depends increasingly on the ability to build partnerships and participate in decisions that individual countries cannot easily control alone.
The debate has implications for defence, energy security, technological development and efforts to respond to economic pressure from larger global powers.
In a world where the United States, China and other major powers can exert considerable influence, European countries face questions about how they can protect their interests collectively. Miliband believes Britain should be part of that discussion rather than standing at its margins.
Could Britain return to the EU?
The question of whether Britain might eventually rejoin the European Union has returned to political debate, but the path towards membership would be complicated.
Rejoining would require negotiations with EU institutions and member states. Britain could not simply restore its former membership arrangements automatically, and the terms would depend on the positions of both sides.
There would also be significant domestic political obstacles. Brexit continues to shape party competition, and voters remain divided over whether withdrawal was a mistake or an expression of democratic sovereignty.
For some supporters of rejoining, the economic and diplomatic benefits of membership outweigh the disadvantages. Others favour a more limited approach, seeking closer cooperation in trade, security and research without restoring full membership.
A new relationship could potentially involve arrangements for closer economic integration, improved coordination on foreign policy or expanded cooperation on policing and migration. Each option would carry different implications and require detailed negotiations.
Miliband’s position is that Britain needs a more organised and durable relationship with Europe. His intervention does not eliminate the practical and political difficulties, but it reinforces the argument that the current arrangement should not be treated as permanently fixed.
Burnham has an opportunity to define how far his government wants to go. He could concentrate on incremental agreements, seek a broader partnership or eventually open a debate about membership. Each route would require a clear explanation of its purpose and likely consequences.
The political risks of reopening Brexit
Any attempt to move Britain closer to the EU would provoke strong reactions.
Brexit supporters would likely argue that the government was undermining the result of the referendum and attempting to reverse a democratic decision without sufficient public consent. They could also warn that closer integration would involve accepting rules made partly outside Westminster.
Those who support closer European ties would counter that democratic decisions can be reconsidered when circumstances change and that governments have a responsibility to evaluate policies according to their present effects.
The political challenge is to avoid repeating the polarised arguments that dominated the referendum campaign. A serious discussion should focus on specific proposals rather than reducing the issue to competing claims about patriotism or betrayal.
Voters would need clear information about the economic consequences, regulatory obligations, migration arrangements and diplomatic implications of any new agreement.
The government would also have to demonstrate that it understands the concerns of communities that supported Brexit, including people who felt that economic growth and political decision-making had become concentrated in particular regions.
Closer relations with Europe would not automatically solve Britain’s problems with productivity, housing, public services or regional inequality. Domestic policy would remain essential.
Nevertheless, supporters of a reset argue that improved cooperation could give Britain additional tools to address those challenges.
A defining choice for Britain’s future
Miliband’s intervention has placed a fundamental question before Burnham: should Britain continue treating Brexit as a settled political issue, or should the government openly reassess the country’s long-term relationship with Europe?
The answer will depend on economic evidence, diplomatic priorities and the political mandate the government believes it has received.
The case for a closer relationship rests on the argument that Britain can achieve more by cooperating with its neighbours, particularly in areas where international coordination is increasingly important. The case against deeper integration emphasises national autonomy, democratic accountability and the desire to retain the freedom to set domestic policies independently.
Neither argument removes the need for practical decisions. Britain must determine how it intends to trade, cooperate on security, attract investment and influence the international rules that affect its interests.
Miliband believes Brexit has weakened the country and that a new relationship with the EU is essential to reversing that trend. His critics would dispute the extent of the damage and question whether closer integration would deliver the promised benefits.
Burnham now faces the task of turning that debate into a clear strategy. He must decide which changes are achievable, what concessions might be required and how any agreement would improve people’s lives.
Ultimately, Britain’s future relationship with Europe will be determined not by one speech or one political intervention, but by the choices made by the government, the response of European partners and the willingness of the British public to reconsider the country’s place in the world.
For Miliband, the warning is clear: political independence does not automatically produce political influence. His appeal to Burnham is to recognise that distinction and build a relationship with Europe that reflects the economic and security realities of the twenty-first century.