Andy Burnham torn apart for showing ‘true colours’ in furious Brexit row
Andy Burnham has opened the door to reversing Brexit (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham has been accused of showing his “true colours” after reopening the bitter debate over Brexit, with Reform UK MP Suella Braverman launching a furious attack on the Prime Minister’s changing position on Britain’s relationship with the European Union.
The row erupted after Mr Burnham declared that Brexit had “done more harm than good” and promised to set out options for the UK’s long-term relationship with Brussels. His comments have reignited speculation that Labour could eventually consider a second referendum or even a commitment to rejoin the EU in its next general election manifesto.
The intervention marks a significant change in tone from the message Mr Burnham delivered while campaigning in the Makerfield by-election, a constituency that voted heavily to leave the EU in 2016.
Ms Braverman, a prominent Brexit supporter who has since joined Reform UK, accused the Prime Minister of misleading voters to secure political support before revealing his real intentions once in office.
Her criticism raises a question that could become central to the next election: is Labour responding pragmatically to Britain’s economic difficulties, or is it preparing to reopen one of the most divisive constitutional arguments in modern British politics?
Braverman accuses Burnham of misleading voters
Ms Braverman did not hold back when discussing Mr Burnham’s apparent change of emphasis.
Speaking to the Daily Express about her book Patriot: Empire, Betrayal, and Hope, she pointed to the Prime Minister’s comments during the Makerfield by-election campaign, when he sought to reassure voters that he did not intend to reopen the Brexit debate.
She argued that Mr Burnham had presented one position to an electorate with strong Leave support, only to adopt a markedly different tone after becoming Prime Minister.
In her assessment, the shift demonstrated a lack of political honesty and suggested that voters had not been given a clear account of his intentions.
Ms Braverman said the change showed “a high level of contempt” for the British public and argued that Reform UK was the party voters could trust to oppose a return to EU membership.
Her attack was designed to place Mr Burnham on the defensive over a politically sensitive issue. For many Brexit supporters, the referendum result was not simply a policy decision but a democratic instruction that politicians should respect.
However, the strength of Ms Braverman’s criticism does not, by itself, establish that Mr Burnham deliberately misled voters. The central question is whether his latest proposals represent a reversal of a clear promise or a reassessment of Britain’s interests in light of economic and political developments.
That distinction is likely to become increasingly important as the debate develops.
Suella Braverman hit out at Andy Burnham over Brexit (Image: JONATHAN BUCKMASTER)
Prime Minister opens the door to a different Brexit relationship
Mr Burnham’s comments at the Labour Party conference went further than a promise to improve practical cooperation with Brussels.
He argued that the UK needed to settle on a long-term relationship with its largest trading partner and said he could not honestly claim that the existing arrangement was good enough.
“Brexit has done more harm than good,” he told Labour delegates, setting out his case for examining the options available to Britain. He said he would use the opportunity surrounding a forthcoming UK-EU summit to explain those options and seek a broader political consensus. <Cite refs={[“turn401321search0″,”turn401321search1”]} />
The options under discussion could range from closer cooperation on specific sectors to arrangements involving the customs union or single market. Full EU membership has also returned to the political conversation.
But there is an important difference between acknowledging that rejoining should be considered and committing the country to rejoin.
Mr Burnham has not, in the conference remarks cited in the original report, set out a definitive timetable for EU membership or confirmed that a second referendum will appear in Labour’s next manifesto. Those possibilities remain part of the political debate rather than established government policy.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister’s willingness to discuss options previously treated as politically off-limits has alarmed opponents who believe it risks reopening the divisions of the referendum era.
For Labour supporters who believe Brexit has damaged economic growth, the shift could represent an overdue willingness to confront the consequences of leaving the bloc.
For committed Leave voters, it may look like an attempt to revisit a decision that politicians should have accepted.
Why Makerfield could become a political test
The controversy is particularly sensitive because of the political symbolism of Makerfield.
The constituency voted strongly for Leave in the 2016 referendum, making Brexit a potentially important issue for any candidate seeking to represent the area. Mr Burnham’s earlier assurances were therefore politically significant.
Opponents can argue that voters in such constituencies deserve a clear explanation of what a future Labour government would do about Britain’s relationship with Europe.
If the party intends to consider rejoining the EU, critics will ask why that possibility was not made explicit during the by-election campaign. If it does not intend to pursue membership, they will demand to know why the Prime Minister has chosen language that appears to reopen the question.
The political danger for Labour is that voters may interpret ambiguity as an attempt to satisfy different audiences at different times.
That risk extends beyond traditionally pro-Leave constituencies. Some Remain supporters may welcome the Prime Minister’s change in tone but still expect a concrete plan, rather than an open-ended promise to explore alternatives.
Labour must therefore decide how much detail it is prepared to provide before the next election and how it intends to explain the economic, constitutional and democratic implications of any change.
A broad promise to improve relations with Brussels may be easier to sell than a commitment to rejoin the EU. But if ministers continue to leave every option open, opponents will have an opportunity to portray the Government as indecisive.
Braverman turns her fire on the Conservatives too
Although Ms Braverman’s immediate target was Mr Burnham, she also criticised the Conservatives for failing to deliver what Brexit supporters had been promised.
The former Conservative minister argued that successive governments had failed to make full use of the freedoms created by leaving the EU.
She highlighted immigration, regulation and the extent to which Britain had diverged from EU rules, claiming that the previous Conservative administration had failed to deliver a sufficiently clear break from Brussels.
Her argument is that leaving the EU was not the problem; rather, it was the failure of politicians to implement the policy effectively.
That position gives Reform UK a potentially useful political message. The party can oppose rejoining while also arguing that the Conservatives squandered the opportunity Brexit created.
However, the claim that Brexit’s benefits were simply left undelivered is itself contested. Supporters of closer European integration argue that leaving the single market and customs union introduced additional barriers to trade and increased administrative burdens for businesses.
The broader economic picture is complex, involving trade, investment, migration, regulation and wider international conditions. Any credible assessment must distinguish the effects of Brexit from other factors influencing Britain’s performance.
Ms Braverman’s attack therefore serves two purposes: it challenges Labour’s intentions while also reinforcing Reform UK’s argument that the Conservatives failed to deliver the version of Brexit they advocated.
The economic argument behind Burnham’s shift
Mr Burnham’s strongest case for reconsidering Britain’s relationship with the EU is economic.
The European Union remains a major market for British businesses. Changes to trading arrangements can affect exporters, manufacturers, agricultural producers and companies that rely on cross-border supply chains.
Supporters of closer integration argue that reducing unnecessary barriers could improve trade, support investment and make it easier for businesses to sell products across Europe.
The Government has also pointed to practical cooperation in areas such as food and drink, energy and regulatory arrangements as ways to improve the relationship without immediately returning to EU membership. Official parliamentary answers have previously set out red lines against rejoining the single market or customs union, making the Prime Minister’s willingness to discuss broader options a notable shift in political emphasis. <Cite refs={[“turn401321search8″,”turn401321search9”]} />
Yet closer integration would also involve difficult choices.
Greater alignment with EU rules could reduce friction for businesses, but it could limit Britain’s freedom to adopt different standards in certain areas. Rejoining the single market would raise questions about the movement of people and the obligations associated with participation.
Full EU membership would be more complicated still. It would require negotiations with the bloc and agreement from all member states, and Britain could not simply assume that it would recover its previous arrangements on identical terms. <Cite refs={[“turn401321news40″,”turn401321search5”]} />
The Prime Minister will need to explain what Britain would gain, what obligations it would accept and how the proposed relationship would address the concerns that motivated Leave voters in the first place.
Economic growth alone may not settle the argument. Questions of sovereignty, democratic accountability and immigration control remain central to the views of many Brexit supporters.
Could Labour promise to rejoin the EU?
The possibility of a future manifesto commitment is likely to dominate the debate if Mr Burnham continues to signal that all options are open.
A manifesto pledge to seek EU membership would be a much more substantial commitment than a promise to improve cooperation. It would require Labour to explain how the process would work, whether a referendum would be necessary and what conditions the UK would be prepared to accept.
A second referendum could provide a direct democratic mechanism for voters to decide the question. However, it would also risk reviving the political hostility and uncertainty that followed the 2016 vote.
Alternatively, a government could seek an electoral mandate for a particular policy without holding a separate referendum. That approach would still leave difficult questions about the terms of membership, the negotiating process and the legitimacy of reversing such a consequential national decision.
At present, the Prime Minister’s conference speech establishes a willingness to examine the UK’s long-term relationship with Europe, not a settled commitment to rejoin.
That distinction may not satisfy either side. Brexit opponents could demand a clearer path towards membership, while supporters may interpret even a preliminary discussion as evidence that Labour intends to reverse the referendum result.
For the Prime Minister, the challenge will be to turn an open-ended debate into a clear, credible policy without appearing to conceal the potential consequences from voters.
Reform UK sees an opportunity
The controversy offers Reform UK an opportunity to present itself as the strongest defender of Brexit.
Ms Braverman’s argument is that voters cannot trust Labour to respect the referendum result and should instead support a party committed to preventing a return to EU membership.
That message could resonate with people who believe the Brexit settlement remains incomplete and who are frustrated by what they see as repeated attempts to revisit the decision.
However, Reform UK will also face questions about what it would do differently from the Conservatives. If its position is that Britain should remain outside the EU, it will need to explain how it would improve trade, investment, migration management and economic performance within that framework.
Simply opposing rejoining may be politically effective, but it does not automatically resolve the practical problems facing businesses and households.
The party will also need to persuade voters that its proposals offer a workable alternative, rather than a return to the political arguments that have dominated British politics for much of the past decade.
A new Brexit battle is taking shape
Mr Burnham’s intervention has brought Brexit back to the centre of national politics at a time when the Government is under pressure to deliver economic growth and demonstrate that its policies can improve living standards.
Ms Braverman’s accusation that the Prime Minister has revealed his “true colours” is a forceful political attack, but the underlying dispute is about more than personal credibility.
It concerns whether Britain’s current relationship with Europe is delivering sufficient benefits, how much sovereignty the country should retain, and whether voters should be asked to reconsider the decision made in 2016.
For Labour, the danger is that a debate intended to address economic concerns becomes another divisive argument about trust and identity. For Reform UK, the opportunity is to turn that uncertainty into a rallying cry for Brexit supporters.
The next steps will matter. Mr Burnham must explain which options he genuinely supports, how any changes would be authorised and what they would mean for trade, immigration and national decision-making.
Until those details emerge, claims that Labour has already committed to rejoining the EU go beyond what has been formally established.
One thing, however, is clear: Brexit is no longer a subject the Prime Minister appears willing to leave untouched. Whether that leads to a practical reset with Brussels or a full-blown political confrontation will depend on the choices Labour makes next — and on how voters respond.