Britain’s prime minister, Andy Burnham, has said what no recent occupant of Downing Street has said so openly: that he would like to see the United Kingdom rejoin the European Union in his lifetime. In an interview on Monday morning, he said the 2016 decision to leave “has not played out” as promised, called for an “honest” discussion about its effects, and described the present deal as not good enough. In the same breath, he ruled out any move toward rejoining in this parliament, any re-run of the referendum and any early general election. The combination of ambition and restraint is the key to understanding the move. Burnham, three months into his premiership, is trying to change the conversation about Europe without committing himself to a policy that could divide his own party and voters.
The statements fall into three groups. The first is a diagnosis. Burnham said: “I don’t think things have worked out as people said they would,” and that Britain ended up with a “harder Brexit than was proposed in the referendum campaign.” He argued that it has “weakened our economy,” and added that it has also weakened control of immigration. That second point is notable, because immigration control was one of the principal arguments of the leave campaign. His claim is that the small-boats crisis has grown since Brexit because Britain can no longer return people to Europe in the way that it used to.
The second group is an aspiration, carefully worded. Asked directly whether he wants Britain to rejoin, he said: “In my lifetime I would like to see that happen, but I am not going to move ahead of the public.” He insisted that “the British public are the bosses.” This is the language of a politician who states a preference but defers to voters on timing.
The third group is a set of limits. He said he is “not proposing rejoining in this parliament,” that “we’re way, way away from that,” and that he will not move away from the red lines in Labour’s 2024 manifesto, including the pledge not to rejoin the single market or the customs union. He would not rerun the 2016 referendum, and there would be no early election: “There is no election coming anytime soon. People may as well put that out of their mind.”
The only concrete programme is incremental. “What I am saying is we need to take some practical steps to make the arrangement work better,” Burnham said. He wants a UK-EU summit on 20 November to make progress on boosting economic growth and on tackling illegal immigration. He also hopes for a deal “which would be good for British food manufacturers, because they’ve been hit hard by Brexit,” a reference to the barriers that food exporters face in selling to the European market.
He had signalled the direction in a speech to his party’s annual conference last month, when he opened the door to rejoining and promised to set out options for a new relationship with the bloc later this year. Reshaping Britain’s relationship with the EU has become one of his key pledges since taking office, and he is gambling on revisiting an issue that dominated politics for a decade.
The strategy can be described as “talk first, change later.” By opening a discussion about the outcome of Brexit, Burnham shifts the terms of debate: the question is no longer whether the decision should ever be reconsidered, but how honestly its effects are assessed. By limiting immediate action to practical measures within existing red lines, he avoids a confrontation over the large constitutional questions.
The timing and tone reflect the pressures on a Labour prime minister. There are two main audiences.
The first consists of voters who want a closer relationship with Europe. Polling provides some encouragement: a chart accompanying the report, based on an Ipsos Political Monitor survey of 1,137 British adults in May, is headlined “Over half of British adults would vote to rejoin the EU.” A single survey does not settle the question, and answers to hypothetical referendum questions can change if a real campaign begins, but it shows that the prime minister is not far ahead of public opinion. Labour is also described as still enjoying a “Burnham bounce” in the polls, which gives him some room.
The second audience is the leave-voting areas in the north of England and the Midlands, where there is concern among Labour MPs that reopening the Brexit debate could create opportunities for Reform UK. Burnham’s own constituency, Makerfield, voted 65% to leave the EU. Asked about it, he said: “I said we wouldn’t rerun the referendum and that’s not what I’m doing. The British public, the people of Makerfield, will be the bosses here. They will decide what happens in relation to Brexit.” The answer is aimed at reassuring leave voters that he is not overriding their earlier decision.
The risk is therefore asymmetrical. A bolder pro-European line could energise some supporters but alienate those he needs in former Labour heartlands. A cautious line may disappoint enthusiasts but protects the party’s flank against Reform. Burnham’s approach, an admission of personal preference with strict limits on action, tries to hold both groups.
The most striking part of the argument is the link between Brexit and immigration. Burnham’s claim is that leaving the EU removed the ability to return people to European countries under shared arrangements, and that this contributed to the rise in small-boat crossings. He used the point to back the home secretary’s tougher immigration rules, including her plan to make foreign workers wait 15 years for permanent residency. He said that Shabana Mahmood was right to pursue the plan on the principle that “settlement is a right to be earned not just something that is granted automatically.”
This reasoning serves two purposes. It places the immigration debate inside the Brexit debate, suggesting that closer cooperation with Europe could help control borders. It also gives the government an argument that is not purely economic, appealing to voters who care more about security and control than about trade. Critics will question the causal claim and will point out that the pressures behind irregular migration are complex, but the framing is politically useful.
Several obstacles limit how far Burnham can go. The first is party unity: the red lines in Labour’s manifesto were chosen to keep leave-voting areas on side, and moving beyond them would risk a split. The second is the EU’s own position. Brussels has its own conditions for any deepening of relations, including alignment with its rules and contributions to its budget, which are politically sensitive in Britain. The third is the economic backdrop, with budgets under pressure and a government that has said Wednesday’s budget will offer “breathing space” and “a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel.” Any measure with costs will compete with other priorities.
A fourth constraint is time. With no early election planned, the next general election is distant enough that positions can change. A prime minister who declares an aspiration for rejoining in his lifetime is making a long-term statement, not a plan for this parliament.
The next test is the UK-EU summit on 20 November. Practical outcomes in areas such as food and agricultural trade, and cooperation on illegal immigration, would show whether the government can deliver gains within its red lines. The options paper that Burnham promised later this year will indicate how far the discussion about a “new relationship” is intended to go. Opinion polling, both on rejoining and on Labour’s standing in leave-voting seats, will show whether the approach helps or hurts. The response of Reform UK and the Conservatives will indicate how the opposition tries to exploit the issue.
Burnham’s statement is less a policy change than a change of permission. By saying openly that Brexit has not worked as promised, and that he would like to see Britain back in the EU one day, he has made it acceptable for the governing party to discuss a question that has been taboo since 2016. By refusing to set a timetable or cross the manifesto’s red lines, he has limited the immediate risk. The outcome will depend on whether practical improvements can be shown to voters, and whether the public, whom he calls “the bosses,” moves in his direction. For now, the message is that the argument is open again, but the decision is not on the table.
Comments