Brexit Fury as Labour Moves the UK Closer to the EU Under Andy Burnham
The relationship between Britain and the European Union remains one of the most controversial issues in modern British politics. Although the United Kingdom formally left the EU several years ago, the arguments that surrounded Brexit have not disappeared. Instead, they continue to influence elections, political parties and public opinion. The suggestion that Labour is preparing to move Britain closer to the European Union under Prime Minister Andy Burnham has therefore generated anger among some Brexit supporters, while others see closer cooperation with Europe as a practical response to the economic and political difficulties that have emerged since Brexit. The debate raises an important question: should Britain remain firmly outside the European project, or should it develop a much closer relationship with the EU without formally rejoining it?
For many Brexit supporters, leaving the European Union was not simply an economic decision. It represented an important statement about national sovereignty and democratic control. The 2016 referendum was seen by many voters as an opportunity to take power away from European institutions and return it to the British Parliament. The slogan of “taking back control” became one of the most powerful political messages of the campaign. For these voters, any attempt to move Britain closer to the EU can therefore feel like an attempt to reverse the result of the referendum. Their anger is understandable because Brexit was presented as a fundamental change in Britain’s relationship with Europe rather than a temporary political experiment.
However, leaving the EU did not mean that Britain had to stop cooperating with European countries. The UK remains geographically, economically and historically connected to Europe. British businesses trade with European companies, British citizens live and work across European countries, and Britain and its European neighbours cooperate on security, science, energy and environmental issues. The challenge is therefore to find a balance between national independence and international cooperation.
Under Burnham, Labour appears to be attempting to move in this direction. The government’s European Partnership Bill has been described as part of an effort to repair Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Parliamentary debates have included support for closer European ties and arguments that improved relations could benefit British businesses. This does not necessarily mean that the government intends to reverse Brexit or seek immediate EU membership. Instead, closer cooperation could involve reducing unnecessary trade barriers, improving arrangements for businesses and strengthening cooperation in areas where both sides have common interests.
From an economic perspective, there are strong arguments for improving relations with the EU. The European Union is Britain’s largest nearby trading bloc and an important market for British companies. When Britain was an EU member, businesses operated within a relatively predictable framework for trade. Brexit created new customs procedures, regulatory requirements and administrative costs. Large companies may be able to absorb some of these costs, but smaller businesses can find them much more difficult to manage. A closer relationship could therefore make it easier for British firms to export and import goods.
This does not mean that Brexit has been the only cause of Britain’s economic difficulties. The UK has also experienced the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, global inflation, energy-price shocks and international instability. It would therefore be simplistic to blame every economic problem on Brexit. Nevertheless, Brexit has changed the conditions under which British businesses trade with European partners. Improving those conditions could be a sensible economic policy even for politicians who have no intention of reversing Brexit.
Supporters of closer European relations also argue that cooperation can strengthen Britain’s influence. Britain is a major European country, but it is no longer part of the EU’s decision-making institutions. This creates a complicated situation. The UK remains deeply affected by decisions made in Brussels while having less direct influence over them. A closer partnership could allow Britain to cooperate more effectively with European countries while maintaining formal political independence.
Nevertheless, critics of Labour’s approach have legitimate concerns. The strongest argument is that Britain should respect the result of the 2016 referendum. Millions of people voted to leave the EU because they wanted greater national control over laws, borders and economic policy. If the government gradually accepts more European rules or institutions, Brexit supporters may argue that the country is effectively returning to the system it voted to leave. This could create a serious democratic problem if major changes are introduced without sufficient public debate.
Immigration is another sensitive issue. Freedom of movement was an important part of EU membership, and one of the major arguments for Brexit was the desire to give Britain greater control over immigration. Any closer relationship with the EU would therefore have to be carefully designed. Britain could cooperate with European countries on trade and security without automatically restoring freedom of movement. However, if future agreements required Britain to accept European rules in exchange for economic benefits, critics could accuse the government of sacrificing sovereignty.
This is why the language surrounding the issue matters. If Labour presents closer European cooperation as a practical way to reduce trade barriers and improve economic growth, it may receive support from voters who are tired of the Brexit argument. If, however, it appears to be secretly attempting to reverse Brexit, it could provoke a strong political backlash. Burnham himself has reportedly argued that Brexit has been damaging while also saying that the country should not simply rerun the old Brexit arguments. This suggests an attempt to move the debate away from the emotional politics of the referendum and towards practical questions about Britain’s future relationship with Europe.
There is also a wider political calculation. Britain remains divided over Brexit. Some voters believe leaving the EU was essential for national independence, while others believe it damaged the economy and Britain’s international position. Younger generations are often more comfortable with European cooperation, while some older voters remain strongly attached to the idea of Brexit. Political parties therefore face a difficult task. A government that moves too quickly towards Europe could alienate Brexit supporters, particularly in areas where Leave sentiment remains strong. On the other hand, refusing to improve relations with Europe could frustrate businesses and voters who believe that Brexit created unnecessary economic barriers.
For Burnham, this represents a particularly important political challenge. His image is based partly on his ability to connect with voters outside Westminster and present himself as a politician who understands the concerns of ordinary communities. A strongly pro-European agenda could potentially undermine that image among voters who supported Brexit. At the same time, Burnham cannot ignore economic realities. His government needs to increase growth, improve living standards and create opportunities for British businesses. If closer cooperation with Europe can contribute to those goals, completely rejecting it would also be difficult to justify.
The best solution may therefore be a pragmatic relationship with the EU. Britain does not necessarily have to choose between complete separation and full membership. There is a wide range of possibilities between those two extremes. The UK could seek improved arrangements for agricultural products, professional services, scientific research, energy, education and security while retaining control over immigration and domestic legislation. Such an approach would respect the fundamental decision to leave the EU while recognising that cooperation can sometimes serve Britain’s national interest.
Ultimately, the Brexit debate should become less about winning an old political argument and more about solving current problems. Britain has already left the European Union. The question now is how to make that relationship work as effectively as possible. If particular Brexit arrangements create unnecessary costs for businesses or consumers, changing them should not automatically be regarded as a betrayal of the referendum. Equally, any major transfer of authority back to European institutions should be openly debated rather than introduced indirectly.
In conclusion, the claim that Labour is pushing Britain closer to the EU under Andy Burnham is politically explosive because Brexit remains deeply connected to questions of sovereignty, identity and democracy. Some people will see closer European cooperation as a betrayal of the referendum, while others will see it as a necessary correction to the economic and political problems created by Britain’s separation from the EU. The reality is more complicated than either argument suggests. Britain can remain an independent country while maintaining close economic and diplomatic relations with Europe. The real test for Burnham’s government will be whether it can improve Britain’s relationship with the EU without ignoring the democratic concerns of those who voted for Brexit. Rather than reopening the divisions of 2016, the government should focus on building a practical, transparent and mutually beneficial relationship with Britain’s European neighbours. If it succeeds, Britain may finally be able to move beyond the politics of Brexit and concentrate on the challenges of the future.