Andy Burnham’s EU reset ‘doomed to fail’ as PM ‘panics’

Prime Minister Andy Burnham with Ireland’s Micheál Martin (Image: Getty)

Andy Burnham’s attempt to deepen Britain’s relationship with the European Union has come under renewed political pressure, with Conservative critics arguing that the Government’s approach risks creating new barriers for British businesses rather than removing them.

The latest dispute centres on the EU’s proposed “Made in Europe” industrial policy, which is intended to strengthen European manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, particularly from China.

For the British Government, the concern is straightforward: if European procurement and industrial rules favour companies based inside the EU, British firms could find themselves disadvantaged despite the Government’s broader attempt to rebuild economic ties with Brussels.

The issue has emerged at an awkward moment for Burnham.

On September 18, the Prime Minister hosted Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin at No 10 North in Manchester, making Martin the first international leader to visit the new northern base of the Prime Minister’s office. The meeting was presented by Downing Street as part of a broader effort to strengthen Britain’s relationship with Ireland and Europe.

Burnham said the relationship between Britain and Ireland mattered “on every single level”, while Martin said he wanted to see an even “stronger and closer” relationship between the UK and the EU.

Ireland’s position is particularly significant because it currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union.

The two leaders discussed trade and security, cooperation over Northern Ireland and preparations for the next UK-Ireland summit, which Britain is expected to host during the first half of 2027. They also reaffirmed their commitment to the Good Friday Agreement.

The meeting therefore provided a visible demonstration of Burnham’s European approach.

But it also exposed the practical difficulties facing the Government.

At almost exactly the same time, Chancellor John Healey was in Dublin meeting EU finance ministers and pressing for Britain not to be excluded from the bloc’s “Made in Europe” plans.

Reuters reported that Healey was seeking exemptions or arrangements that would prevent British companies from being disadvantaged by rules favouring European suppliers. The concern is particularly relevant to industries integrated into European supply chains, including automotive manufacturing.

The dispute is significant because it illustrates a fundamental problem facing the post-Brexit relationship.

Britain wants closer economic cooperation with the EU without returning to the bloc’s single market or customs union.

Burnham’s Government has retained those political red lines.

The objective is instead to negotiate sector-by-sector agreements that could make trade easier while maintaining Britain’s status as a non-member of the European Union.

That approach can produce practical benefits, but it also means Britain is negotiating from outside the institutions that make many of the rules affecting its exporters.

The “Made in Europe” dispute demonstrates how that can create tension.

The European initiative is designed partly to strengthen European industry against global competition. But from the British perspective, the definition of what counts as “European” could become economically important.

If British companies are treated differently from EU-based companies when governments or businesses award contracts, the consequences could extend beyond individual firms.

British manufacturers could potentially find themselves facing additional barriers when competing for European business.

The Government is therefore seeking to place the issue on the agenda of the wider UK-EU reset.

The Guardian reported that British officials want the Industrial Accelerator Act, the legislation underpinning the “Made in Europe” approach, included in discussions before a new UK-EU summit is scheduled.

This has complicated the timetable for the next major summit.

The meeting was originally expected earlier in 2026, but the political transition following Keir Starmer’s resignation disrupted the timetable. British officials have subsequently indicated that a new date may depend on progress over issues including the industrial policy.

That makes the reset considerably more complicated than the simple political message of “closer ties with Europe”.

There are several negotiations taking place simultaneously.

Food and drink trade is one.

Energy cooperation and linking carbon markets are another.

Youth mobility is also under discussion.

The UK and EU have already agreed that Britain will join the Erasmus+ programme from 2027, giving British students and young people access to the European education and training scheme.

The Government is also interested in greater cooperation over defence and security.

These areas provide potential opportunities for closer cooperation without formally reversing Brexit.

However, each agreement requires negotiations over regulations, access, financial contributions and political conditions.

That means the reset cannot be achieved simply through ministerial meetings.

The criticism from the Conservatives is therefore focused partly on whether the Government is achieving enough concrete economic benefit from its approach.

Alex Burghart, the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, described the EU reset as “doomed to fail” and accused Burnham of having “panicked” meetings with European leaders.

Those are political judgments rather than established facts.

The Government’s position is substantially different.

Ministers argue that closer engagement with European markets can improve opportunities for British businesses while respecting the Government’s existing red lines.

Healey’s comments in Dublin reflect that strategy. He argued that closer ties should mean British businesses have better access to European supply chains and customers, rather than being excluded from them.

The dispute over “Made in Europe” therefore exposes the central balancing act.

Britain wants access.

The EU wants to strengthen its own industrial base.

Neither objective necessarily prevents cooperation, but the details matter enormously.

If European rules favour companies that manufacture within the EU, Britain will have to negotiate exemptions or alternative arrangements.

If Brussels agrees to such arrangements, the Government could point to them as evidence that its reset strategy is producing practical results.

If it does not, opposition parties are likely to argue that Britain’s distance from the EU institutions is creating additional costs for British industry.

The issue is particularly important for manufacturers whose supply chains cross borders repeatedly.

A modern vehicle, for example, may involve components manufactured in several different countries before the finished product reaches the customer.

Rules that distinguish between EU and non-EU components can therefore have consequences far beyond a single transaction.

The automotive sector has already attracted attention in the dispute. Reuters reported that British automotive suppliers have around £15 billion in annual exports to Europe, illustrating the scale of the commercial relationship at stake.

For the Government, this makes the negotiations more than an abstract argument about Brexit.

They are directly connected to employment, investment and Britain’s industrial competitiveness.

At the same time, the EU has its own strategic objectives.

European governments are attempting to reduce dependence on China in critical industries and strengthen domestic manufacturing capacity. From Brussels’ perspective, prioritising European suppliers is therefore part of a wider economic-security strategy rather than simply a mechanism for excluding Britain.

This creates a difficult negotiating environment.

Britain is asking for closer integration into some European economic structures while remaining outside the EU itself.

The question is how much access Brussels is prepared to offer and what conditions it will attach to that access.

The answer could determine the practical meaning of Burnham’s reset.

The political symbolism of the Prime Minister’s meeting with Martin is therefore only one part of the story.

The more important test will be whether the Government can convert improved diplomatic relations into agreements that businesses can actually use.

Food exporters want simpler arrangements.

Manufacturers want predictable supply chains.

Young people want opportunities to study and work across Europe.

Energy companies want stable market arrangements.

Defence industries want access to European programmes.

And ministers want British companies to avoid being treated as outsiders when major European industrial contracts are awarded.

Each objective requires detailed negotiations.

The Government has already achieved some movement. Britain’s planned participation in Erasmus+ from 2027 is one example of a concrete agreement arising from the reset.

But other areas remain unresolved.

The “Made in Europe” controversy is particularly revealing because it demonstrates that closer political relations do not automatically eliminate economic differences created by Brexit.

Indeed, the opposite may sometimes be true: as Britain seeks closer cooperation, new European policies can create fresh questions about the country’s position outside the bloc.

Burnham’s decision to meet Martin in Manchester also reflects another feature of his premiership.

The Prime Minister has sought to place greater emphasis on the regions and has used No 10 North as a visible symbol of that approach.

Martin’s visit was therefore simultaneously a diplomatic meeting and part of Burnham’s domestic political message about moving power and government activity beyond London.

For Ireland, the relationship has an additional importance.

The UK and Ireland share responsibilities connected with the Good Friday Agreement, while trade, security and Northern Ireland remain closely linked to Britain’s relationship with the European Union.

Martin’s visit therefore provides an opportunity to discuss both bilateral UK-Irish relations and the wider European relationship.

The Taoiseach has publicly welcomed closer UK-EU engagement, describing stronger ties as beneficial to Ireland as well as Britain.

That support could prove useful to London in negotiations with Brussels.

But it cannot guarantee the outcome Britain wants.

Ultimately, the EU’s decisions will depend on the interests of its member states and the terms of any agreement negotiated with the UK.

That is why the coming months could be important for Burnham’s European strategy.

If Britain secures meaningful access to European markets while maintaining its stated red lines, the Government will have evidence that a closer post-Brexit partnership is possible without reversing Brexit itself.

If negotiations repeatedly produce delays, exemptions that fall short of British expectations or new barriers for exporters, opposition parties will have more material with which to challenge the Government.

The “Made in Europe” dispute has already demonstrated how quickly the political narrative can change.

One day, the Government can present a meeting with an EU leader as evidence of renewed cooperation.

The next, British ministers can be in Dublin asking European governments not to exclude British companies from the very industrial strategy designed to strengthen Europe’s own economy.

That contradiction does not necessarily mean the reset is failing.

It does show, however, that the reset is not a simple process of restoring Britain’s former relationship with Europe.

Britain is attempting something more complicated: closer cooperation without membership, greater market access without the single market, and improved relations without reopening the fundamental Brexit settlement.

Whether that model can deliver the economic results promised by the Government will depend on the agreements ultimately reached.

For now, Burnham’s meeting with Micheál Martin has reinforced the political commitment to closer European ties.

The simultaneous dispute over “Made in Europe” has demonstrated the obstacles.

The next stage of the reset will therefore be measured less by photographs of leaders meeting in Manchester or Dublin and more by whether British companies, workers and consumers see tangible changes in their ability to trade and cooperate with Europe’s largest economic bloc.