Brexit will cost us a packet, Mr Burnham, writes Jonathan Saxty (Image: Getty)
Rejoining the EU would lose Andy Burnham money! That’s right. The PM’s anti-democratic scheme to drag us back into bed with Brussels means Labour could no longer charge VAT on private schools. Yep, that would be illegal under EU rules. There’s a few billion Burnham would have to find elsewhere. But you know what the real problem is with rejoining the EU? It’s that the whole argument is built on a fallacy.
Rejoiners like King Andy reckon Brexit hasn’t done anything for us. Problem is that neither Labour nor the Tories before them maximised the benefits of Brexit. Example – regulatory divergence. Look this may sound boring as but what we do with regulation has a direct impact on your jobs and wages, and the country’s growth.
Outside the EU, the UK can remove and redesign EU-derived rules to boost productivity, innovation and competition. Labour and the Tories chose to maintain alignment with the EU but there is a huge opportunity for experimentation in AI, finance and healthcare. Britain can now move way faster than the EU where EU-wide regulation becomes cumbersome, attracting companies to come here, build businesses and create jobs.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Then there’s tax: Brexit Britain has way more freedom to use tax, subsidies and regulation to attract investment and encourage industries. This is because EU state aid and harmonisation rules are no longer there.
You heard a lot during the referendum about farming and fishing. Brexit now allows us to set our own agricultural subsidies, import tariffs, regulations and trade arrangements – meaning cheaper food through selectively lowering tariffs on products Britain cannot efficiently produce, while protecting particular domestic industries elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the UK can now determine its own fisheries management regime rather than operating under the EU Common Fisheries Policy. All there for the taking.
So what could we be doing? Well, we could use procurement and industrial policy more strategically. The government spends enormous sums buying infrastructure, defence equipment, technology and services. Outside the EU, Britain has greater freedom to design procurement and industrial strategies around domestic strategic capabilities such as semiconductors, defence, aerospace, nuclear and cyber.
London is one of the world’s top two finance centres and brings in colossal revenue to pay for things like the NHS. Outside the EU, we can diverge from EU regulation where UK firms can operate better under simpler rules. We could use London’s scale to attract fintech, asset management and insurance.
Instead of doing what the Tories and Labour did – replacing EU rules with near identical UK rules – we should be streamlining faster approval for medicines, clinical trials, biotech, AI and financial products to make Britain the best place on earth to develop products and build businesses.
How’s that for a Brexit dividend? What’s more – as the only country on earth whose universities are in the same league as the top American unis – we have the clout to exploit all this.
And what about those energy bills? Brexit gave us infinitely more freedom over energy and industrial policy. We can now aggressively support oil and gas, nuclear, wind, grid infrastructure, storage and hydrogen to name some. We could design energy-intensive-industry subsidies around British strategic priorities.
All this is before we get to CANZUK, the movement to bring Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK together – four states which share a king, language, history, cultural ties, and legal and political systems. Think what we could do by marrying London’s financial clout with the gargantuan resource bases of Australia and Canada. Think too of the defence and security benefits, never mind economic and energy ones.
Sorry Mr Burnham, but your Labour government and the Tories before you did naff all to maximise the monumental benefits of Brexit. The UK is stuck in some semi detached hinterland, unable to cut the apron strings with a sclerotic EU. We need a government ready, willing and able to take Brexit Britain forward and upwards rather than looking back to a tired and deadbeat club in Brussels.
Sorry Andy, Dragging Britain Back into Bed with Europe Could Cost Billions
The debate over Britain’s future relationship with the European Union is gathering momentum once again, and Andy Burnham’s apparent openness to closer European ties has brought an uncomfortable question back into the spotlight: how much would Britain have to pay to rejoin the bloc, and would the potential benefits justify the cost?
For supporters of a closer relationship with Brussels, the argument is straightforward. Britain trades extensively with European countries, businesses continue to face post-Brexit administrative barriers, and a stronger partnership could create opportunities for investment and economic growth. They believe the UK should be willing to reconsider its position if the evidence suggests that a different arrangement would serve the national interest.
Critics, however, warn that rejoining the European Union would not be a simple exercise in restoring the arrangements Britain enjoyed before Brexit. It could involve substantial financial contributions, new regulatory commitments, difficult negotiations and concessions that would have to be explained to voters. They argue that politicians must be honest about these potential costs before presenting closer European integration as an easy solution to Britain’s economic difficulties.
The disagreement is particularly significant because the country continues to face pressure over public spending, taxation, economic growth and the funding of essential services. At a time when households are concerned about their finances, any proposal involving billions of pounds deserves detailed scrutiny.
The central issue is not whether Britain should cooperate with its European neighbours. It already does so in numerous areas. The question is whether full EU membership would offer sufficient advantages to justify the financial and political commitments it could require.
The price of returning to the European Union
One of the most important considerations in any discussion about rejoining the EU would be Britain’s financial contribution to the bloc.
Before Brexit, the UK contributed to the EU budget and received funding through various European programmes. Its net contribution was different from its gross contribution because the calculation also took account of the money Britain received back, including agricultural support, regional funding and other spending.
If Britain sought to rejoin, its financial arrangements would need to be negotiated. It would be misleading to assume that the UK could simply return under precisely the same terms it previously enjoyed.
The EU’s budgetary framework, membership and political circumstances have changed since Britain’s departure. The terms offered to a prospective returning member would depend on negotiations and the rules applicable at that time.
Britain might be required to make substantial annual contributions, depending on the final agreement. However, the precise amount cannot responsibly be stated as a settled figure before the terms are known.
Nor would the gross contribution alone provide a complete picture. A proper assessment would need to consider the funds Britain might receive, the economic consequences of membership, the cost of complying with relevant rules and the potential savings from reduced trade barriers.
Critics of rejoining argue that the money involved could instead support domestic priorities such as the NHS, schools, transport infrastructure or local services. Supporters counter that membership could generate economic benefits that offset some of the cost.
Both arguments depend on the details. A financial contribution is not automatically a waste, just as a promise of economic growth does not automatically prove that an investment will pay for itself.
The public deserves a transparent calculation that distinguishes confirmed costs from estimates and uncertain future benefits.
Why Brexit remains an economic battleground
The economic consequences of Brexit continue to influence the debate about Britain’s relationship with Europe.
Leaving the single market and customs union changed the trading framework between the UK and EU. Many businesses now have to navigate additional documentation, customs procedures and regulatory requirements when moving goods across borders.
For companies with complicated European supply chains, those changes can create extra expense and delay. Smaller exporters may find the administrative burden particularly difficult to manage.
However, the effects differ between sectors and businesses. Some companies have adapted to the new system, while others have reduced their European operations or changed their supply arrangements. Britain’s economic performance has also been affected by factors unrelated to Brexit, including the pandemic, energy prices, domestic investment and longstanding productivity problems.
That makes sweeping claims about the costs of leaving—or the savings that rejoining would deliver—difficult to justify without careful evidence.
Supporters of EU membership argue that restoring deeper economic integration could reduce barriers and make British companies more competitive. They believe that greater certainty over trading arrangements could encourage investment and improve access to European markets.
Opponents respond that the UK can negotiate practical agreements without accepting all the obligations of membership. They argue that Britain should focus on improving domestic productivity, reducing unnecessary regulation and expanding trade with countries around the world.
The choice is therefore not simply between paying billions to Brussels and receiving nothing in return. It is between different economic and political arrangements, each involving potential costs, benefits and trade-offs.
Andy Burnham faces difficult questions
For Burnham, any suggestion that Britain should move closer to the EU brings several difficult questions into focus.
What precise arrangement does he support? Does he favour improving the existing UK-EU relationship, pursuing closer alignment in selected sectors or seeking full membership? How would the Government measure the benefits, and what financial commitments would it be prepared to accept?
These distinctions matter because closer cooperation does not necessarily require rejoining the EU.
Britain could seek agreements to improve trade, strengthen scientific collaboration, coordinate security arrangements or simplify procedures for particular industries. Such agreements would still require negotiation and might involve financial or regulatory commitments, but they would not automatically amount to full membership.
Rejoining, by contrast, would require a much broader negotiation over the UK’s rights and obligations. It would raise questions about the single market, the customs framework, freedom of movement, budget contributions and the role of European institutions.
A political leader who advocates closer European ties must explain which objectives they want to achieve and why the proposed arrangement would be preferable to the alternatives.
It is not enough to promise better economic performance without identifying the mechanisms through which that improvement would occur.
Likewise, opponents of closer ties should not assume that every agreement with Brussels represents an attempt to reverse Brexit. The merits of each proposal depend on its terms and expected effects.
Sovereignty comes with a price of its own
The financial debate is closely connected to the question of national sovereignty.
For many people who voted Leave in 2016, the referendum was about more than the EU budget. It was about ensuring that decisions affecting Britain could be made by institutions accountable to British voters.
Rejoining the bloc would require the UK to accept the obligations associated with membership. In relevant policy areas, that would involve participating in common rules and decision-making arrangements rather than exercising complete independent discretion.
Supporters argue that membership would give Britain a direct voice in shaping European rules that affect its businesses and citizens. They contend that being outside the bloc can leave the UK facing European standards without having the same influence over their development.
Critics believe that the ability to make independent decisions is itself valuable, even where exercising that freedom carries economic costs.
Neither position can be assessed through financial calculations alone. Voters may reasonably place different values on regulatory independence, democratic accountability, economic integration and international influence.
The important point is that any proposal to rejoin must be honest about the compromises involved. If membership is presented solely as an economic opportunity, the constitutional and political implications risk being overlooked.
Could Britain afford the change?
Britain’s public finances make the question of priorities particularly important.
The Government faces competing demands for spending on health, education, defence, infrastructure and social care. Taxpayers also expect ministers to demonstrate that public money is being used effectively.
Against that background, critics argue that any additional international financial commitment should be assessed carefully. They want to know whether the costs would be offset by measurable benefits and whether the same objectives could be achieved through a less expensive arrangement.
However, the affordability question cannot be answered simply by pointing to a potential annual contribution. Governments routinely spend money on international cooperation, trade arrangements and shared programmes where they believe the wider benefits justify the expense.
The relevant comparison is between the overall costs and benefits of different policy options.
For example, if closer European integration reduced administrative costs for exporters, increased certain types of investment or improved economic activity, some of those benefits could eventually influence tax revenues and employment. But the scale of those effects would be uncertain, and they should not be presented as guaranteed savings.
Equally, remaining outside the EU has its own economic consequences, including the trade barriers and administrative requirements associated with the current relationship.
A credible assessment would compare these effects over a realistic period, identify the assumptions behind the calculations and explain which costs would fall directly on the public finances.
Without that analysis, claims that rejoining would inevitably bankrupt Britain or automatically make the country richer are political assertions rather than established conclusions.
Immigration could prove just as contentious
Financial contributions are only one part of the argument. Immigration and freedom of movement would also be central to any attempt to return to EU membership.
Many Leave voters supported Brexit because they wanted the UK to have greater control over immigration policy. They believed that leaving the EU would allow the Government to determine its own arrangements for people coming to live and work in Britain.
A return to membership would require the country to address the implications of EU rules on the movement of people. That could be politically difficult, particularly amid continuing concerns about housing, public-service capacity and migration levels.
Supporters of rejoining argue that mobility can help businesses recruit workers, support universities and give British citizens opportunities to live and work elsewhere in Europe. They also maintain that migration’s effects depend on economic conditions and the policies governments adopt.
Opponents worry that rejoining could restrict the freedom to pursue a national immigration policy.
These are substantive disagreements that cannot be resolved by discussing the EU budget alone. Any political proposal would need to explain how immigration arrangements would work and how they would address the concerns expressed during the referendum campaign.
The risk of repeating Britain’s old political divisions
The renewed debate also carries political risks for Labour.
The party’s supporters include people who believe Brexit has harmed Britain’s economic prospects and want a closer relationship with Europe. They also include voters who supported Leave and remain sceptical of any proposal that could reopen the membership question.
If Labour politicians advocate a return to the EU without addressing the concerns of Leave voters, they risk reinforcing the perception that Westminster has not listened to the original referendum result.
At the same time, refusing to discuss any improvements to the current relationship could leave businesses and other groups frustrated by practical problems that might be addressed through negotiation.
The challenge is to distinguish between respecting the result of the 2016 referendum and treating every aspect of the post-Brexit settlement as beyond discussion.
Britain has already left the EU. Rejoining would be a major change requiring extensive negotiations and a convincing democratic mandate. But examining trade barriers, cooperation and alternative arrangements does not in itself reverse the referendum.
The public debate would be more productive if politicians clearly identified the policies they support rather than relying on competing claims about betrayal or national decline.
What would rejoining actually require?
A British application to rejoin would not automatically restore the country’s former membership arrangements.
The UK would have to negotiate with the EU, and the terms would need to be accepted by the existing member states in accordance with the bloc’s accession procedures. The outcome could involve obligations that differed from the special arrangements Britain had secured before leaving.
The process would also raise questions about the euro, the EU budget, regulatory alignment and other aspects of membership. The precise treatment of these matters would depend on negotiations rather than assumptions about what Britain could demand.
Any government pursuing re-entry would therefore need to prepare the public for a potentially lengthy and complicated process.
It would also need to explain how a major constitutional change would be authorised domestically. Given the political significance of the original referendum, securing public confidence would be essential to the legitimacy and durability of any new settlement.
A petition or a statement from an individual politician cannot substitute for that process.
Britain needs figures, not slogans
The argument over rejoining the EU is likely to continue because it touches on fundamental questions about Britain’s economy, identity and place in the world.
Those advocating membership should set out the expected financial contribution, the obligations Britain would accept and the benefits they believe would follow. They should distinguish between measurable savings, possible economic gains and outcomes that remain uncertain.
Those opposing rejoining should explain how their preferred alternative would address trade friction, investment concerns and other practical problems associated with the current relationship. They should also recognise that remaining outside the EU is not cost-free.
For Burnham and other politicians, the test is whether they can explain the choices in enough detail for voters to judge them fairly.
Britain should not be asked to accept a major change on the promise that everything will improve. Nor should it reject every form of closer cooperation because of a single headline figure.
The potential cost of rejoining could run into billions under some possible arrangements, but the precise figure would depend on the terms negotiated. The relevant question is what Britain would receive in return, what commitments it would undertake and whether a different arrangement could deliver similar benefits at a lower cost.
Until those questions are answered with credible evidence, claims about the financial consequences of rejoining remain incomplete.
The debate should therefore move beyond slogans. The future relationship between Britain and Europe deserves a careful assessment of economic realities, national priorities and democratic consent. Only then can voters judge whether full membership, a closer partnership or the current settlement offers the most convincing path forward.