Amid reports of Mr Burnham wanting to closer align with the bloc, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has been invited by the EU to become an “associate member”.

On Wednesday, European Commission leader Ursula von der Leyen threw her support behind “opening the door” to establish much closer ties with Canada across key sectors.

Asked by host Mark White whether Canada’s new ties to the EU are a “blueprint” for the UK to follow, Mr Fuller was quick to disagree.

He told GB News: “No, and in fact, I think he, the Prime Minister, is pointing us in the wrong direction.

“The British people want a Prime Minister who can get a grip on the economy and get a grip on the pressures they have on their budgets. We need a Prime Minister who can get a grip on the taxes on our businesses.”

The Conservative MP accused the Prime Minister of being “out of his depth” in his handling of the country.

He said: “Today, we’re saying that the Chancellor should rule out even more tax increases on business, and instead we have a Prime Minister who seems to be a little bit out of his depth.

“Now he’s got the top job and thinks that the right answer for the British people is to get the European Union to make the decisions for us once again, that’s the wrong approach.

“We need a Prime Minister who is strong on principle, who’s got a backbone and is going to lead this country so that we can prosper as a nation state. That’s what we need.”

Looking ahead to October’s Budget, Mr Fuller agreed with the Prime Minister’s admission that it will be “challenging” for Britons.

Mr Fuller said: “The Prime Minister is right to say it’s challenging, and part of the reason for that is over the last two years we’ve had a Government increasing taxes and increasing spending.

“But there is a political choice of when you’re faced with that challenge. As a Government, you can either say the answer is more spending and more regulation, or you can say that we want to look to reduce public spending so that we have the capacity not only to bring down the debt burden, but also to find space for tax cuts.”

The Conservative minister took aim at the PM further, arguing: “The Prime Minister is very keen to take us back to the 1970s.

“Those of us who were around in the 1970s remember that decade as a period of decline and of despair high interest rates, high inflation, high energy costs.

“And ultimately then the British people went on the path say enough with big Government, let our businesses prosper. Get off the backs of the British people and let them be free to make the decisions with their own money, rather than have the Government waste it for them.”

Mr Fuller urged Chancellor John Healey to “send a signal” to British businesses that he will “not raise taxes” and further their burden.

He concluded: “The Conservative Party want to get the taxman off the back of our business. We want to free up time for small businesses as sole traders, so they can work on trying to improve their business, serve more customers rather than trying to having to fill in endless forms.

“But we also need to send the signal on taxes, too, and the signal the Chancellor should be sending today for his Budget coming up in October is that he will not increase taxes on business. That will give businesses the incentive to go out and invest now, rather than worry to work out what’s coming around the corner in a few weeks time.”

Andy Burnham Accused of Having ‘No Backbone’ Over EU Reset: ‘Out of His Depth!’

Andy Burnham has come under a fresh attack from the Conservatives over his plans to strengthen Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with shadow Treasury minister Richard Fuller accusing the Prime Minister of lacking political resolve and warning that the Government risks moving the country in the wrong direction.

Fuller’s intervention comes as the UK-EU relationship enters another sensitive phase. Burnham’s Government has said it wants a closer relationship with Brussels following Britain’s departure from the bloc, but ministers have also insisted that they are not seeking to reverse Brexit or rejoin the EU’s single market, customs union or free movement arrangements.

The disagreement has become increasingly focused on how far the proposed “reset” should go and what Britain should seek in return.

For Fuller, the answer should involve maintaining greater national control over economic policy and regulation. Speaking to GB News, he accused Burnham of being “out of his depth” and argued that the Prime Minister needed to show what he described as greater strength and principle in dealing with the EU.

The comments reflect a wider Conservative criticism of the Government’s European strategy, but they come at a time when ministers are also confronting practical economic questions about Britain’s trading relationship with its largest nearby market.

The argument over the EU reset

Burnham inherited a programme of closer UK-EU cooperation from his predecessor, but his Government has indicated that it wants to take the relationship further in selected areas.

The Prime Minister has previously argued that Brexit contributed to Britain’s prolonged period of weak economic growth and has called for a more ambitious relationship with the EU.

At the same time, Downing Street has maintained important limits.

The Government says Britain will not rejoin the European Union, the customs union or the single market, and there will be no return to free movement. Those commitments remain part of Labour’s stated policy framework.

That creates a difficult balancing act.

Ministers want to reduce some of the economic and administrative barriers created by Britain’s separation from the EU without reopening the fundamental question of Brexit itself.

The proposed reset has therefore focused on areas such as trade, security, youth mobility, energy and cooperation between British and European institutions.

But negotiations have encountered fresh obstacles.

The “Made in Europe” problem

One of the most significant disagreements concerns the EU’s proposed “Made in Europe” industrial policy.

The policy is designed to encourage European production and reduce dependence on Chinese industrial supply chains. However, British officials are concerned that giving preference to EU-based companies could leave British manufacturers at a disadvantage.

The issue is particularly sensitive for industries that depend heavily on European supply chains.

The British automotive sector, for example, exports substantial amounts of goods to the European market. Any new rules that make it more difficult for British companies to compete for European contracts could have wider consequences.

Burnham has therefore argued that the policy should be part of discussions between London and Brussels.

Government officials have warned that the proposed legislation could affect British steel and other strategically important industries.

The European side, however, has shown limited enthusiasm for changing the policy simply to accommodate Britain.

That has contributed to delays in the next stage of the UK-EU reset.

Canada adds another complication

The debate has become more complicated because of Canada’s increasingly close engagement with the European Union.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has been discussing a deeper relationship with Brussels, including closer cooperation on trade and security.

European officials have indicated that they are open to exploring new forms of cooperation with Canada.

That has attracted attention in Britain because Canada, like the UK, is outside the EU but has historically maintained extensive economic and political links with the bloc.

Recent reports have suggested that some European officials see potential for an unusually close relationship with Canada.

For British critics of Burnham’s approach, the comparison has become politically useful.

Fuller rejected the idea that Britain’s relationship with the EU should follow the Canadian model. He argued that Britain should concentrate instead on its own economic interests and maintain control over its national decisions.

The Government faces a different calculation.

Britain is geographically part of Europe and conducts a large share of its international trade with European countries. A closer relationship could therefore offer economic advantages even without reversing Brexit.

Fuller attacks Burnham

Fuller’s criticism was particularly direct.

He argued that Britain needed a Prime Minister capable of defending national interests and accused Burnham of appearing uncertain about the direction of government policy.

His comments included claims that Burnham was “out of his depth” and that the Prime Minister lacked the backbone required to pursue what Fuller regards as an independent national strategy.

Those are political judgments from a Conservative opposition politician, rather than independently established assessments of Burnham’s ability.

They nevertheless illustrate the central dividing line in the current debate.

The Conservatives are seeking to frame closer European cooperation as a potential loss of national control.

Labour, by contrast, argues that improving practical relations with the EU can support British businesses while leaving the fundamental Brexit settlement intact.

What does Burnham actually want?

Burnham’s position is more cautious than some of his critics suggest.

The Prime Minister has spoken about the economic damage associated with Brexit and has said Britain needs a more ambitious relationship with the EU.

However, there is currently no indication that his Government intends to reverse the country’s departure from the bloc.

Instead, ministers are looking for individual agreements that could make trade and cooperation easier.

One example is a possible youth mobility arrangement, which could allow younger British and European citizens to spend time studying, training or working across borders.

Such an agreement would represent a significant change from the current relationship but would not amount to rejoining the single market.

Other areas under discussion include simplifying border arrangements, strengthening cooperation over energy and linking elements of Britain’s carbon market more closely with the EU system.

These measures demonstrate why the phrase “EU reset” can mean different things to different political groups.

For supporters, it means repairing practical relationships after Brexit.

For opponents, it risks becoming a gradual process of regulatory alignment.

Business pressure

The economic dimension of the debate is becoming increasingly important.

British businesses have repeatedly highlighted the additional costs and administrative requirements associated with trading across the post-Brexit border.

A closer relationship with the EU could potentially reduce some of those obstacles.

But there are also concerns about accepting European regulations without Britain having a direct vote in the institutions that create them.

That is one of the fundamental tensions surrounding the reset.

Greater alignment may make trade easier, but it could also limit the Government’s ability to establish completely different rules for British companies.

The Conservatives have argued that Britain should maintain a genuinely independent regulatory framework.

The Government’s response is that cooperation does not necessarily mean surrendering regulatory independence.

The November summit

The next major milestone is expected to be a UK-EU summit later this year.

The summit was originally expected to take place earlier, but political changes in Westminster disrupted the timetable.

The Government now wants to use the meeting to advance discussions on several areas of cooperation.

However, the dispute over “Made in Europe” could complicate negotiations.

The Financial Times has reported that talks have been delayed again and may not take place until late November because of disagreements over the EU’s industrial policy.

That delay adds pressure on Burnham’s Government to demonstrate that its reset strategy is producing tangible results.

It also gives the opposition another opportunity to question whether closer European cooperation is delivering enough economic benefit to justify the concessions involved.

The wider political battle

The debate over Europe is unlikely to disappear from British politics.

Brexit remains one of the most consequential decisions of recent decades, and political parties continue to disagree over what Britain’s relationship with the EU should look like.

Recent polling cited by The Independent found that only a minority of respondents regarded Brexit as a success, while a larger proportion viewed it negatively. The same research found support for stronger trade links with the EU.

Those findings do not provide a single mandate for any particular future relationship, but they demonstrate that public attitudes have continued to evolve.

Burnham therefore faces competing pressures.

Some voters want Britain to move closer to Europe.

Others remain concerned about sovereignty and believe Brexit should lead to a genuinely independent regulatory and economic system.

The Prime Minister’s challenge is to pursue closer cooperation without allowing opponents to portray the policy as an attempt to reverse Brexit.

What happens next?

The coming months could determine whether Burnham’s European strategy gains momentum or becomes bogged down in disagreements.

The Government will need to negotiate with Brussels while demonstrating to British voters and businesses that any new agreements deliver practical benefits.

At the same time, the Conservatives will continue to scrutinise the negotiations and argue that Britain should retain maximum freedom to determine its own economic policies.

Fuller’s attack therefore represents one part of a much larger political argument.

Calling Burnham “out of his depth” or accusing him of having “no backbone” is a political characterisation, not an established fact. But it reflects the intensity of the opposition to the Government’s European approach.

Burnham, meanwhile, has signalled that he wants Britain to have a closer and more constructive relationship with the EU while maintaining the formal red lines around Brexit.

Whether that middle ground proves workable will depend on what Britain can negotiate with Brussels.

The central question is no longer simply whether the UK should be closer to Europe.

It is how much closer, in which areas, and what Britain will have to accept in exchange.

With the next round of negotiations facing delays and new disagreements emerging over European industrial policy, Burnham’s Government has yet to demonstrate how far its reset can go.

The coming months will show whether the Prime Minister can turn his ambition for closer cooperation into concrete agreements — while convincing critics that closer ties with Europe do not necessarily mean surrendering Britain’s ability to make its own decisions.