Richard Tice warns Labour against bypassing voters
Richard Tice’s intervention centres on a question that could become increasingly important as Labour considers its long-term European policy: would any future attempt to rejoin the EU require a second referendum, or could the Government seek a mandate through a general election manifesto?
The distinction is significant because a general election involves numerous domestic and international issues. Voters choose between competing parties and their overall programmes, meaning support for a particular manifesto does not necessarily establish a clear public preference on every individual proposal.
A referendum, by contrast, asks voters to decide a specific question. Supporters of a second referendum could argue that it would provide a direct mandate for such a fundamental constitutional change. Opponents could contend that another national vote would prolong a dispute that the country has already spent years attempting to resolve.
The legal position and the political expectations are also separate questions. There is no general rule requiring a referendum before every major change in Britain’s relationship with the EU. Whether one would be politically necessary would depend on the precise proposal, the Government’s commitments and the circumstances in which it sought approval.
Tice’s warning therefore goes beyond the immediate policy disagreement. It reflects Reform UK’s wider argument that the public should have a direct say before the country considers reversing its departure from the bloc.
For Labour, the challenge is to explain what any proposed change would involve and how democratic consent would be secured. For Reform, the opportunity is to present itself as the party most determined to defend the outcome of the 2016 vote.
What could closer EU ties mean for Britain?
The debate is taking place as the Government prepares for a UK-EU summit in Brussels on November 20. Burnham has identified several areas where he wants progress, including food and drink trade, emissions trading, energy cooperation, youth mobility and collaboration on illegal immigration. He has argued that agreements in these areas could add more than £10 billion a year to the British economy by 2040.
Richard Tice has issued a warning to Labour (Image: Getty)
Those proposals do not, by themselves, amount to a decision to rejoin the EU. Britain can negotiate agreements with the bloc while remaining outside its institutions, although the extent of cooperation would depend on the terms negotiated and the obligations accepted.
The distinction is central to the arguments on both sides. Supporters of closer cooperation say the UK could reduce trade friction, improve coordination with European partners and strengthen economic opportunities without immediately reversing Brexit. Critics may question whether the benefits justify any associated costs, regulatory commitments or restrictions on Britain’s freedom to set its own rules.
Burnham has also raised concerns about the proposed “Made in Europe” approach, which could affect whether British-made components qualify for particular European supply chains. His Government will need to establish whether it can secure meaningful access for British businesses while negotiating with EU leaders who must also protect the interests of member states.
The November summit will therefore be an important test of what closer relations can deliver in practice. Announced targets and projected economic gains are not guaranteed outcomes; their value will depend on the final agreements and their implementation.
Could Brexit become the defining issue again?
For nearly a decade, Brexit has shaped arguments about immigration, economic performance, sovereignty and Britain’s place in the world. The latest exchanges suggest those questions could once again become central to national politics.
Reform UK is likely to use the controversy to challenge Labour on its intentions, while the Conservatives may seek to portray closer European alignment as a retreat from the commitments made during the referendum campaign.
Labour, meanwhile, faces the task of explaining how it can pursue economic cooperation without appearing to disregard voters who supported leaving the EU. Burnham’s emphasis on dialogue and practical agreements offers one route, but his refusal to close off the possibility of deeper integration has created uncertainty about where the process might ultimately lead.
The political consequences will depend on the proposals that emerge and how clearly the Government explains them. A limited agreement on food standards or energy cooperation would raise different questions from a formal application to rejoin the EU.
For Tice, the message is already clear: Labour should not assume that voters will accept a major constitutional change without a direct vote. For Burnham, the argument is that refusing even to examine the available options would prevent Britain from responding pragmatically to changing economic and geopolitical circumstances.
Both positions place democratic consent at the heart of the dispute, but they differ over how that consent should be demonstrated and what choices should remain open.
A political battle with no easy conclusion
Tice’s warning has added another confrontational voice to an already sensitive debate. His statement that Labour has “no idea what they are unleashing” captures Reform UK’s concern that revisiting Brexit could reignite divisions over immigration, sovereignty and national identity.
But the controversy is not yet a settled policy decision to rejoin the EU. Burnham has called for a serious examination of Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe, while the Government prepares to negotiate practical agreements at the November summit.
The next stage will depend on what ministers put forward, what Brussels is prepared to offer and whether Labour decides to make a more explicit commitment in its next manifesto.
Any move towards full EU membership would raise far-reaching questions about trade, migration, regulation, contributions to the EU budget and the UK’s place in European institutions. Those issues would require detailed public explanation rather than being resolved by political slogans alone.
For now, Tice has made clear that Reform intends to challenge any attempt to reverse Brexit without what it regards as an adequate democratic mandate. Burnham, meanwhile, argues that the country must be willing to discuss its options rather than treat the current arrangements as beyond question.
The immediate argument is about a possible referendum. The larger dispute concerns who should decide Britain’s future relationship with Europe, what evidence should guide that decision and how the Government can pursue economic opportunities while maintaining public trust.
As the November summit approaches, those questions are likely to remain at the centre of the political debate. Whether the result is a limited reset or a more fundamental reconsideration of Brexit, the Government will face pressure to explain its intentions and demonstrate that any major change has a clear and credible democratic basis.