The prime minister is expected to tell the Commons later it would be a “dereliction of duty” to turn down a closer relationship with the European Union – if one can be negotiated with Brussels.
In a statement to MPs on Monday, Andy Burnham will argue it is time to “face up to the reality that Brexit has done more harm than good” and “the status quo is not good enough for Britain.”
He first pledged to explore closer ties with the bloc at a UK-EU summit later this year at the Labour Party conference last month.
Addressing the Commons, Burnham is expected to say that a new deal with the EU could help tackle illegal immigration and boost economic growth.
He will claim that if he could secure that then “the vast majority of the public would expect us to take it”.
Last month, Burnham told the BBC it was “possible” a future Labour election manifesto could promise a new in-out referendum on the EU.
A summit between the UK and the EU was due to take place in the summer but was postponed after Sir Keir Starmer announced his resignation. It has been rescheduled for next month.
The prime minister hopes to secure tweaks to the current arrangements between London and Brussels and also begin a wider conversation about the long term relationship between the UK and its nearest neighbours.
A No 10 source said: “Andy understands why some politicians don’t want to face up to the reality that Brexit has not delivered what they once promised.
“But it is time for a different conversation about what our long-term relationship should be. Sticking with the status quo and not working relentlessly to secure a good deal that boosts growth would be a major dereliction of duty.”
In his speech at Labour’s conference, he said “immigration control” had been “weakened by Brexit” because the UK “lost collaboration with our European partners. And we are still having to work hard to bring it back”.
Speaking at her party conference last week, the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said it was “a terrible idea” to “reopen the Brexit debate.”
“Can you imagine having to go through that again? So much time lost, arguing with ourselves with the EU. Going round in circles, businesses not knowing whether they should invest. He wants to do it all again.”
The Commons sits on Monday for the first time since 15 September, having been in recess during some of the party conferences.
Rejecting Closer EU Ties Would Be a Dereliction of Duty, PM Warns as Brexit Debate Returns
Britain’s relationship with the European Union is once again moving to the centre of the political debate, after Prime Minister Andy Burnham argued that refusing to explore closer ties with Brussels would amount to a serious failure of responsibility. His intervention signals a potentially important change in the way the government approaches Brexit, reopening questions that have divided the country for more than a decade.
Speaking to MPs on October 12, Burnham said the existing relationship between Britain and the EU was no longer good enough. He insisted that the government had a responsibility to examine the opportunities available to the country rather than allow political divisions from the past to dictate future decisions. With a UK-EU summit scheduled for November 20 in Brussels, the prime minister wants to use the coming weeks to pursue agreements designed to strengthen trade, improve energy cooperation and address illegal immigration. <Cite refs={[“turn157642search0″,”turn157642news8”]}/>
The language used by Burnham is significant. Describing the refusal to consider closer relations as a “dereliction of duty” is a direct challenge to those who believe Britain should maintain its current distance from the European project. It suggests that, in the prime minister’s view, responsible leadership means examining every realistic option that could improve the country’s economic prospects and national security.
However, the debate is far from settled. Supporters of Brexit continue to argue that leaving the EU was about restoring democratic control, while advocates of a closer partnership believe the country has paid too high an economic price for its departure. Burnham must now demonstrate that his approach can deliver tangible benefits without reopening the political wounds that Brexit left behind.
Why the Prime Minister Wants a New Approach
Burnham’s argument begins with the practical consequences of the current trading relationship. Since the United Kingdom left the European Union, businesses exporting goods across the Channel have faced additional paperwork, regulatory requirements and border procedures. Although Britain and the EU have continued to trade, the arrangements have created difficulties for some industries, particularly those dealing with fresh food and other products that are vulnerable to delays.
The government is seeking a new agreement covering food and drink, alongside cooperation on emissions trading and closer connections between British and European energy systems. A youth mobility scheme is also among the proposals under discussion. The intention is to make selected areas of cooperation easier without immediately requiring Britain to reverse its departure from the EU. <Cite refs={[“turn157642search0″,”turn157642search1”]}/>
For farmers, food producers and exporters, reducing unnecessary administrative burdens could make a meaningful difference. Fresh produce can lose value when shipments are delayed, while smaller businesses may struggle to absorb the costs of repeated certification and regulatory checks. If a new agreement reduces those barriers, British companies could find it easier to compete in one of their most important nearby markets.
The potential benefits extend beyond businesses. Better coordination in energy markets could improve efficiency and reduce certain costs, although the actual effect on household bills would depend on the details of any agreement and wider market conditions. Greater regulatory cooperation could also make it easier for companies to plan investments and sell products across borders.
Burnham has presented the proposed agreements as an opportunity to support economic growth and reduce pressure on households. The government has estimated that the package could add more than £10 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040. That figure is a projection rather than a guaranteed outcome, and its achievement would depend on the final terms and how businesses and consumers respond. <Cite refs={[“turn157642search0″,”turn157642news9”]}/>
Nevertheless, the prime minister believes the possibility of such gains is too important to ignore.
Brexit Remains a Political Fault Line
The difficulty for Burnham is that Brexit was never simply an argument about trade procedures. For millions of voters, the 2016 referendum represented a decision about sovereignty, immigration, national identity and the authority of elected institutions.
Those who voted to leave often believed that Britain would be better able to make its own laws, control its borders and negotiate agreements independently. They may accept that leaving created new administrative burdens, but they reject the suggestion that closer integration with Brussels is necessarily the answer.
For these voters, the phrase “dereliction of duty” may sound like an attempt to portray a legitimate political position as irresponsible. They could argue that the government’s duty is to respect the referendum result and pursue improvements within the framework Britain has already established.
Burnham, however, is attempting to change the terms of the discussion. Rather than presenting the choice as a simple contest between Brexit and rejoining the EU, he wants the country to examine which forms of cooperation would produce the best results. His argument is that Britain should not reject a potentially beneficial agreement simply because it involves working more closely with European institutions.
That distinction matters. A food-trade agreement, an energy arrangement or a youth mobility scheme would not automatically mean rejoining the EU. Each would involve its own negotiations, conditions and political trade-offs.
Yet closer cooperation could raise more complicated questions about regulatory alignment, enforcement and the degree of flexibility Britain would retain. The more closely the two sides coordinate their rules, the more carefully ministers would need to explain where British decision-making authority remained.
The challenge is therefore not only to negotiate an agreement, but also to convince voters that its benefits justify its obligations.
The November Summit Could Be a Turning Point
The Brussels summit on November 20 will provide an early test of Burnham’s strategy. The government has identified trade, energy, youth mobility and immigration cooperation as important areas where progress may be possible. <Cite refs={[“turn157642search0″,”turn157642news8”]}/>
A successful summit could give the prime minister evidence that a pragmatic approach to Europe can produce concrete results. If British exporters receive easier access to European markets, businesses could benefit from lower administrative costs and greater certainty. Agreements on energy and emissions trading could also help companies operating across interconnected markets.
Immigration is likely to be one of the most politically sensitive subjects. Burnham has argued that closer cooperation could improve law enforcement and help authorities exchange information more effectively when tackling criminal networks involved in illegal migration. Such arrangements could strengthen investigations, but they would not automatically resolve the wider challenges surrounding asylum, border management and the movement of people.
The government will need to distinguish between cooperation that improves enforcement and policies that affect who is entitled to enter or remain in Britain. Voters who are concerned about immigration will want measurable results rather than general promises about partnership.
The same principle applies to the economic agenda. Announcements of new agreements may generate headlines, but the public will ultimately judge the government on whether those agreements lead to better opportunities, stronger businesses and lower costs.
If negotiations fail to produce meaningful progress, critics will argue that Burnham has raised expectations without delivering sufficient results. The summit is therefore more than a diplomatic meeting: it is an early test of whether his European strategy can withstand practical scrutiny.
Nigel Farage and the Brexit Supporters Prepare to Fight Back
Any attempt to deepen relations with Brussels is likely to provoke opposition from politicians who believe Brexit must be defended rather than reconsidered.
Nigel Farage and Reform UK have built much of their political appeal around opposition to what they describe as the return of European influence over British affairs. They can use Burnham’s comments to argue that the government is moving away from the promises associated with leaving the EU.
Their message is likely to focus on sovereignty, democratic accountability and the danger of accepting European rules without securing sufficient benefits in return. They may also question whether the government’s economic projections justify the compromises that closer cooperation could require.
For Reform UK, the debate offers an opportunity to present itself as the defender of voters who believe the political establishment has failed to respect the outcome of the referendum. If Burnham appears to be moving towards a more ambitious European relationship without clearly explaining the limits, opponents could turn the issue into a broader argument about trust.
The Conservatives will also face difficult choices. Some may support limited agreements that help British businesses, while others will be reluctant to endorse any language that could be interpreted as reopening the Brexit question. Kemi Badenoch and other opponents of the government will have an incentive to demand clarity over whether Burnham is seeking practical improvements or preparing the ground for a more fundamental change.
The prime minister’s strongest defence will be to insist that the government is not asking voters to accept an undefined political project. Instead, he can argue that each proposal should be judged on its costs, benefits and consequences for Britain.
But that defence will only work if ministers are transparent about the conditions attached to any agreement.
Economic Benefits Must Be Balanced Against National Control
The central question is whether closer relations with the EU can improve Britain’s economic position without creating obligations that voters consider unacceptable.
Supporters of Burnham’s approach argue that geography and economic reality cannot simply be ignored. Britain remains close to a large European market, and many businesses depend on reliable cross-border supply chains. Cooperation on standards and customs procedures could reduce friction and encourage investment.
Opponents counter that regulatory alignment can limit the freedom to pursue different policies. They may worry that the government will gradually accept more European requirements in exchange for market access, leaving Britain responsible for implementing rules over which it has limited influence.
Both arguments deserve serious examination. It would be misleading to claim that closer ties would automatically solve Britain’s economic problems. Productivity, skills, infrastructure, housing, taxation and domestic investment will continue to shape the country’s performance regardless of its relationship with Brussels.
Equally, it would be difficult to justify rejecting every potential agreement simply because it involves cooperation with the EU. A policy should be judged by its actual consequences, not solely by whether it carries the political label of Brexit or a reset.
Burnham’s task is to show that the proposed agreements offer clear advantages, that the costs are understood and that Parliament and the public can scrutinise the terms before the government commits to them.
Will the Public Have the Final Say?
Burnham has promised that the British public will remain in control at every stage of the process. He has also said that, after the immediate effort to secure agreements at the November summit, the country should begin a serious discussion about its long-term relationship with the EU. <Cite refs={[“turn157642search0″,”turn157642search2”]}/>
That commitment could prove crucial. The memory of the Brexit referendum remains powerful, and many voters are wary of political leaders appearing to settle the European question without their consent.
A credible public debate would need to explain the available options, from limited cooperation to more extensive economic arrangements. It would also need to address difficult questions about immigration, financial contributions, regulatory standards and democratic oversight.
Ministers cannot assume that support for improved trade automatically translates into support for rejoining the EU. Voters may welcome easier exports and closer security cooperation while remaining opposed to membership of the single market, customs union or the EU itself.
The government will therefore need to avoid treating public opinion as a blank cheque. If Burnham wants a lasting settlement, he will have to demonstrate that the public understands what is being proposed and has a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome.
A Test of Leadership
Burnham’s warning that rejecting closer EU ties would be a dereliction of duty is an attempt to frame the debate around responsibility rather than nostalgia. He believes Britain should assess the world as it is today, identify where cooperation could serve the national interest and avoid allowing past divisions to prevent future progress.
That argument has force, particularly if the government can demonstrate that existing arrangements are creating avoidable costs and that realistic alternatives are available. Responsible leadership requires governments to review policies when circumstances change and to consider evidence even when the conclusions are politically uncomfortable.
But responsibility also means acknowledging the risks. The prime minister must not exaggerate the likely economic gains, minimise concerns about sovereignty or suggest that all opponents of closer ties are acting irresponsibly. Democratic disagreement is not a dereliction of duty; it is an essential part of deciding the country’s future.
The November summit will provide the first major opportunity to turn Burnham’s rhetoric into practical results. If the government secures agreements that help businesses, improve cooperation and retain public confidence, his strategy could begin to gain credibility. If the negotiations produce little, or if the terms appear to impose unacceptable compromises, the political backlash could be substantial.
Britain’s relationship with Europe is unlikely to be settled by a single speech or summit. The more important question is whether the government can move beyond slogans and demonstrate exactly what closer cooperation would deliver.
For Burnham, the stakes are clear. He wants to show that Britain can protect its interests while building a more productive relationship with its closest European partners. Whether voters agree that this is the responsible course will depend not on the strength of his language, but on the substance of the agreements, the transparency of the process and the results they deliver for the country.