Fury as Emily Thornberry says Brexit ‘not a sacred cow’ – ‘get over it!’
Dame Emily Thornberry has reignited Britain’s bitter Brexit debate after declaring that leaving the European Union was a “disaster” and insisting the country should consider rejoining the bloc without holding another referendum.
The senior Labour MP’s remarks have added fresh pressure on Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who has signalled that the UK’s relationship with Brussels needs a serious rethink. Thornberry believes Labour should be prepared to include rejoining the EU in its next general election manifesto, giving voters a direct choice at the ballot box rather than putting the country through another standalone public vote.
Her intervention has already provoked a sharp response from Reform UK, with the party’s business, trade and energy spokesman Richard Tice warning that Labour would underestimate the political consequences if it attempted to reverse Brexit without a referendum.
The dispute raises a fundamental question for Burnham’s government: how far can Britain move towards Europe without reopening the divisions that shaped the 2016 referendum and dominated British politics for years afterwards?
Thornberry’s position is clear. Brexit should not be treated as an untouchable decision that politicians are forbidden from reconsidering. But critics argue that leaving the EU was the result of a major democratic vote and that any attempt to reverse it would require an equally explicit mandate.
With an EU-UK summit scheduled for Brussels next month, the debate is likely to become increasingly uncomfortable for Downing Street.
Thornberry tells critics to ‘get over it’
Speaking to Sky News, Thornberry challenged the idea that Brexit should remain beyond the reach of political debate.
The Islington South and Finsbury MP argued that Britain should be able to discuss rejoining the European Union openly, particularly if public opinion has shifted since the original referendum.
She said the EU was not a “sacred cow” and urged those opposed to revisiting the question to accept that the UK’s future relationship with Europe could be debated again.
Her argument centres on the belief that Brexit has damaged Britain’s economic prospects and international position. Supporters of closer European integration contend that reducing barriers to trade, improving cooperation and restoring access to aspects of the single market could benefit British businesses and workers.
Thornberry has also argued that a general election could provide the democratic mechanism for making such a decision. Rather than holding a separate referendum, Labour could promise rejoining the EU in its manifesto and allow voters to decide whether they support that commitment when choosing their next government.
The proposal would represent a significant political step. It would move the question beyond a general promise to improve relations with Brussels and place the prospect of membership directly before the electorate.
However, the phrase “get over it” is likely to prove contentious. For many people who voted Leave, Brexit was not simply an abstract disagreement about trade arrangements. It represented questions of sovereignty, immigration, democratic accountability and Britain’s ability to determine its own laws.
Those voters may regard the suggestion that the country should simply move on as dismissive of a decision they considered fundamental.
Thornberry’s supporters may see her comments as an attempt to end a political taboo. Her opponents are likely to interpret them as evidence that some Labour figures never accepted the result of the referendum.
The argument is therefore about more than whether Britain would benefit from EU membership. It is also about how politicians should treat a previous democratic decision when the economic and political circumstances have changed.
Why Burnham is under pressure
Burnham has already suggested that maintaining the existing relationship with Brussels is insufficient.
Speaking in Parliament on October 12, he argued that failing to seek a better arrangement with the EU would amount to a serious dereliction of duty. He has also confirmed plans for a summit in Brussels next month, where his government intends to hold what he described as a serious dialogue about Britain’s future relationship with the bloc.
The Prime Minister has stopped short of committing to immediate re-entry. At the end of September, he said that an in-out referendum would not be the right course at present, while leaving open the possibility that a future Labour manifesto could address Britain’s membership of the EU.
That position allows Burnham to argue for closer cooperation without immediately committing his government to the politically divisive process of rejoining.
Thornberry’s intervention, however, makes the debate more difficult to contain. By advocating an explicit manifesto commitment, she is asking Labour to move beyond technical adjustments to the current relationship and confront the ultimate question of membership.
The Prime Minister now faces competing pressures. Pro-European Labour supporters may demand a more ambitious approach, arguing that the party should not ignore opportunities to improve economic growth and international cooperation.
Meanwhile, voters who supported Brexit may be concerned that the government intends to reverse the result without giving them a direct vote on the question.
Burnham must also consider the practical implications of rejoining. Membership would involve negotiations with EU institutions and member states, including discussions about the terms of accession and the obligations Britain would accept. It could not be achieved simply through a declaration by the British government.
A manifesto pledge might provide a political mandate to pursue negotiations, but it would not guarantee that those negotiations would produce an agreement on the UK’s preferred terms.
The distinction is important. Campaigning for re-entry and successfully securing it are two very different undertakings.
Richard Tice issues a warning to Labour
Reform UK has wasted little time in challenging Thornberry’s proposal.
Richard Tice warned on social media that Labour would have “no idea” what it was unleashing if it attempted to rejoin the EU without a referendum.
His intervention reflects a broader political argument that the 2016 referendum established a mandate that should not be reversed without a further direct public vote.
For Reform UK, Brexit remains an important dividing line between the party and its opponents. The prospect of Labour campaigning for re-entry could provide Reform with an opportunity to mobilise voters who believe the original result should be respected.
The party is likely to argue that a general election covers numerous issues and cannot be treated as an unambiguous referendum on EU membership. Voters choose parties for many reasons, including taxation, public services, immigration, housing and leadership.
Someone could vote Labour because they support its domestic policies without necessarily endorsing a return to the EU. Equally, a voter might support closer cooperation with Europe without wanting full membership.
This is the strongest argument against Thornberry’s proposed approach: a general election result can provide a democratic mandate for a manifesto, but interpreting it as a definitive answer to a single complex constitutional question may be difficult.
Supporters of her position would counter that general elections routinely determine major questions of public policy. Parties publish commitments, voters assess competing programmes and governments are expected to implement the policies on which they campaigned.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether a democratic decision is required. It concerns which democratic mechanism would provide the clearest and most legitimate mandate.
Brexit remains a complicated economic question
Thornberry’s argument is rooted partly in the belief that Brexit has harmed the British economy. The issue remains contested, with economists and political parties disagreeing about the scale of the effects and the extent to which individual economic problems can be attributed to leaving the EU.
Leaving the single market and customs union changed the conditions under which many British businesses trade with European partners. Companies involved in goods exports have faced additional customs procedures and regulatory requirements, while some service industries have had to adjust to new arrangements.
Businesses that depend on cross-border supply chains can be particularly sensitive to administrative delays and compliance costs. Smaller firms may find it more difficult than large corporations to absorb those burdens.
Supporters of closer EU ties argue that reducing barriers could improve trade, encourage investment and make Britain more attractive to businesses seeking access to European markets.
However, rejoining the EU would involve more than removing paperwork. Britain would need to negotiate the terms of membership, address regulatory and institutional questions, and consider the economic and political consequences of accepting the bloc’s rules.
The costs and benefits would differ across industries. Some businesses might welcome easier access to European markets, while others could be concerned about new obligations or changes to existing trading arrangements.
There is also no guarantee that rejoining would automatically resolve Britain’s wider economic challenges. Productivity, investment, skills shortages, housing costs and public finances are influenced by numerous domestic and international factors.
For Burnham, any proposal to move towards membership would need to be supported by a clear assessment of the likely economic gains, the costs of transition and the terms Britain could realistically negotiate.
A slogan about reversing Brexit would not be enough to answer those questions.
The democratic argument: manifesto or referendum?
The most significant element of Thornberry’s proposal is her rejection of the need for another referendum.
Her preferred approach would be to make rejoining the EU an explicit commitment in Labour’s next general election manifesto. Voters would then have the opportunity to accept or reject that policy when deciding which party should form the government.
There are precedents for major constitutional and international questions being addressed through general elections, and the approach could allow Labour to present its European policy as part of a wider programme.
But an EU membership decision would carry consequences that extend across trade, immigration, regulation, law and foreign policy. Critics could argue that the complexity and long-term significance of the issue justify a dedicated public vote.
A referendum would offer a direct answer to a specific question, although the wording, campaign conditions and consequences of the result would themselves be contentious.
An election, by contrast, would allow voters to weigh the European question against all the other issues on the ballot. That could provide a broader mandate for a government, but it might leave uncertainty about how many voters explicitly supported the membership proposal.
Neither method automatically resolves every question of democratic legitimacy. Much would depend on the clarity of the proposal, the information provided to voters and whether the government explained what rejoining would involve.
If Labour did pursue Thornberry’s approach, it would need to specify whether it was promising to begin negotiations, seek membership on defined terms or complete the process within a particular period. These are materially different commitments.
Without that clarity, a manifesto pledge could create expectations that the government would struggle to fulfil.
What could happen at next month’s EU summit?
Burnham’s planned Brussels summit is likely to focus on the practical relationship between Britain and the EU. Discussions could cover trade, economic cooperation, security and other areas where both sides see a mutual interest.
A summit does not, by itself, mean that Britain is preparing to rejoin the bloc. Governments can negotiate closer cooperation while remaining outside the EU, and any move towards membership would require a separate political decision and a substantial negotiating process.
For Burnham, the immediate task is to determine which changes could deliver tangible benefits without triggering a premature confrontation over full membership.
A gradual approach could allow the government to test areas of agreement and demonstrate whether closer ties improve conditions for businesses and citizens. However, critics of the status quo may argue that incremental changes cannot fully resolve the structural barriers created by Brexit.
Thornberry’s comments will add pressure on the Prime Minister to explain where he believes the process should ultimately lead.
If he rules out rejoining, he risks disappointing Labour figures who regard EU membership as the most effective way to restore economic integration. If he signals that membership is a realistic long-term objective, he could face fierce resistance from Brexit supporters and questions about the government’s priorities.
The summit could therefore become an important test of whether Burnham can establish a coherent European strategy that balances economic ambitions, democratic legitimacy and political realities.
A new Brexit battle could threaten Labour’s unity
The debate also presents a challenge for Labour itself. The party contains voters and politicians with different views on Britain’s relationship with Europe, and those divisions have not disappeared simply because the referendum took place years ago.
Some Labour supporters believe Brexit has been damaging and want the government to pursue closer integration as quickly as possible. Others may favour practical cooperation but remain opposed to rejoining, while some voters who supported Leave could be concerned about any attempt to reverse the outcome.
A formal commitment to EU membership would force the party to confront those differences more directly.
It could also create a political opening for Reform UK, which would be likely to present itself as the defender of the referendum result. The Conservatives could face similar questions about whether they support the existing settlement or would consider closer ties under different circumstances.
The wider political contest could shift from how the government manages the economy to whether it intends to reopen one of the country’s most divisive constitutional decisions.
That would be a major gamble for Burnham, particularly if voters believe that more immediate issues deserve greater attention.
Thornberry has reopened a question Labour cannot ignore
Thornberry’s intervention has ensured that Brexit will remain part of the political debate as Burnham prepares for discussions with Brussels.
Her central argument is that the UK should not treat EU membership as permanently settled if the public mood and the country’s economic interests have changed. Her critics respond that the original referendum must be respected and that reversing the decision would require a clear, direct mandate.
Both sides are likely to continue making their case as the next summit approaches.
For Burnham, the challenge is to move beyond the slogans. He must explain what a better relationship with Europe would look like, which economic problems it could realistically address and whether full membership is a goal his government is prepared to pursue.
He must also establish how any major change would be authorised democratically and what Britain would seek to negotiate with the EU.
Thornberry may be right that no political decision should be treated as beyond debate. But declaring Brexit a disaster does not, on its own, establish that rejoining is the best available solution or that a manifesto pledge would settle the question.
Equally, insisting that the debate should never be reopened would ignore the possibility that circumstances and public preferences can change.
The next phase of Britain’s relationship with Europe will depend on the substance of the government’s proposals, the willingness of EU leaders to negotiate and the public’s response to the choices on offer.
For now, Thornberry has delivered a clear message to those who want Brexit treated as untouchable: she believes Britain must be willing to reconsider its decision.
Whether Burnham is prepared to turn that argument into government policy remains the bigger question.