Could the UK Really Rejoin the EU Under Andy Burnham?

Key Points

• Andy Burnham has publicly argued that Brexit has done “more harm than good”, marking a significant departure from the previous Labour government’s position.
• The move could open discussion about a much closer long-term relationship between the UK and the European Union, including a customs union, single-market membership or eventual EU membership.
• Burnham is expected to spend several weeks assessing public opinion before deciding what options to put forward for Britain’s future relationship with the EU.
• The Labour position under Keir Starmer had ruled out returning to the single market, customs union and free movement of people, leaving limited room for deeper European integration.
• Analysts cited in the supplied reporting say Burnham’s approach differs fundamentally from Starmer’s strategy of retaining the existing Brexit settlement while attempting to improve it.
• Estimates cited by The Guardian put the economic impact of leaving the single market at between 6% and 8% of GDP, although the precise scale of Brexit’s economic effect remains contested.
• The UK-EU reset launched by Starmer in 2025 has faced difficulties, while the government’s own estimates suggested the existing reset could increase GDP by no more than 0.3% by 2040.
• Recent polling reported by The Guardian indicated that almost half of the public could support rejoining the EU.
• Burnham’s approach could create political opportunities for Labour among voters who favour closer European integration, particularly as the party has faced pressure from the Greens.
• Conservative responses could become complicated because voters remain concerned about Brexit’s economic consequences, while Nigel Farage has welcomed the development.

Japan Daily Sun (JDS) October 7, 2026 – Andy Burnham’s decision to reopen the question of Britain’s long-term relationship with the European Union has placed Brexit back at the centre of British politics. The prime minister has said that leaving the EU has done “more harm than good”, signalling a significant change from the approach adopted by the previous Labour leadership. Burnham is now expected to assess public opinion before determining what options could be pursued after the next general election. The possibilities range from a customs union and closer single-market arrangements to eventual full EU membership.

Why has Andy Burnham reopened the Brexit question?

The significance of Burnham’s intervention lies partly in its timing and partly in how directly it challenges the political assumptions that have governed Labour’s European policy since Brexit.

According to The Guardian report by its political coverage, Burnham introduced the argument during his first speech as Labour leader at the party’s annual conference. The reference was not presented as a detailed manifesto commitment, but it nevertheless represented a substantial change in the political debate.

Burnham said Brexit had caused “more harm than good”. That assessment moves beyond the previous Labour strategy of accepting the fundamental Brexit settlement while seeking improvements to Britain’s relationship with Brussels.

Under Keir Starmer, Labour’s 2024 election manifesto contained a series of commitments designed to reassure voters who supported Brexit. Those commitments included opposition to returning to the EU single market, customs union and free movement of people.

Those positions were intended to remove uncertainty about whether a Labour government would attempt to reverse Brexit. They also restricted the scope for a future government to negotiate major changes to the UK’s economic relationship with the EU.

Burnham’s intervention changes the political question. Rather than treating Brexit as a settled constitutional issue, he has indicated that its consequences should be assessed and that a different relationship could eventually be considered.

What did analysts say about Burnham’s departure from Labour’s previous position?

Joël Reland, an analyst with UK In a Changing Europe, told The Guardian that Burnham’s position represented a departure from previous political practice.

As reported by The Guardian, Reland distinguished Burnham’s position from Starmer’s previous approach. According to Reland, Starmer had argued that Britain would retain Boris Johnson’s 2019 Brexit agreement while seeking to improve how the arrangement worked.

Burnham’s argument, by contrast, suggests that the underlying relationship may need to change.

That distinction is important because successive British governments have generally avoided openly advocating a fundamental reversal of Brexit.

Even politicians who have criticised aspects of the UK’s departure from the EU have often stopped short of advocating membership of the single market, customs union or the EU itself.

Burnham has not yet committed to a particular option for the next election. His eventual position is expected to depend partly on public reaction and the evidence gathered during the coming weeks.

The political process therefore remains at an exploratory stage rather than representing an immediate attempt to negotiate Britain’s return to the EU.

What options could the UK consider instead of immediately rejoining the EU?

Several possible arrangements exist between the UK’s present relationship with the EU and full membership of the bloc.

The options identified in The Guardian reporting include joining a customs union, returning to the single market and pursuing a relationship similar to Norway’s, where the country participates closely in the European economic system while accepting many EU rules.

At the most extensive end of the spectrum would be full EU membership.

A customs union would reduce some barriers to trade in goods by aligning external tariff arrangements. It would, however, represent a significant change from the current Brexit settlement.

Membership of the single market would go further by restoring much closer economic integration. It would also involve accepting a greater role for EU rules and institutions.

Norway’s relationship with the EU provides another possible model. Norway is outside the European Union but participates in the European Economic Area and therefore maintains extensive access to the single market while implementing many relevant EU rules.

Full membership would represent the largest possible reversal of Brexit, bringing the UK back into the EU’s institutional and political framework.

However, none of these options can simply be selected unilaterally by a British government. Any major change would require negotiations with the EU and agreement from its member states.

Why has the existing UK-EU reset struggled?

The argument for reconsidering Britain’s European relationship has emerged alongside difficulties in the existing UK-EU reset.

The Labour government launched a more modest reset with Brussels in May 2025. Its purpose was to improve relations without reversing the central elements of Brexit.

However, negotiations have encountered disagreements.

One issue cited in the supplied Guardian reporting concerns fees for EU students in Britain. Other disputes have also complicated progress.

A proposed UK-EU summit expected on 20 November remained uncertain according to reporting cited in the article.

The difficulties illustrate the limitations faced by a country negotiating from outside the EU.

Britain can request changes to its relationship with the bloc, but it does not have the same bargaining position as an EU member state.

This was also demonstrated by Britain’s attempt to obtain selective access to the European single market for goods without accepting free movement of people.

According to The Guardian, Brussels rejected that proposal in May.

The episode highlights the challenge of securing individual benefits from the European integration system while remaining outside the broader political and regulatory framework.

Could closer EU ties produce significant economic benefits?

Economic considerations are central to the argument for reassessing Brexit.

The supplied Guardian reporting cites estimates suggesting that leaving the single market has already reduced the size of the British economy by between 6% and 8% of GDP.

The exact economic effect of Brexit remains the subject of analysis and disagreement, including questions about how much of Britain’s economic performance can be attributed specifically to Brexit rather than other factors.

Nevertheless, the economic relationship with the EU remains significant because the bloc represents Britain’s largest and closest trading market.

Reland told The Guardian that Burnham’s domestic programme would require substantial funding, particularly in areas such as social care. He argued that stronger economic growth could provide one route to financing those commitments and that closer economic integration with Britain’s largest trading partner could contribute to that objective.

The argument therefore connects Brexit policy with the government’s wider economic programme.

However, the potential economic gains from closer integration would have to be weighed against the political, regulatory and institutional consequences of any new arrangement.

Why does Labour’s electoral position matter?

Political calculations are another factor behind the timing of the debate.

The supplied reporting notes that Labour has lost support among some voters on its left, including voters attracted to the Green party.

A more pro-European position could potentially appeal to sections of the electorate who believe Britain should move closer to the EU.

Recent polling reported by The Guardian and attributed to journalists Pippa Crerar and Rowena Mason indicated that almost half of the public would support rejoining the EU.

That finding does not automatically mean that a majority would vote for a political party campaigning on EU membership.

Public opinion on Brexit is more complicated than a single question about membership. Voters can support closer relations with Europe without supporting full EU membership, while others may favour maintaining the current settlement despite economic concerns.

For Burnham, the polling nevertheless provides evidence that discussing Brexit’s long-term consequences does not necessarily represent an electoral liability.

It gives Labour an opportunity to examine whether the political balance has changed since the referendum and the 2019 general election.

Why could the Conservative response be complicated?

The political response from Britain’s Conservative Party could become particularly significant.

Gaby Hinsliff, writing in The Guardian, observed that Nigel Farage responded to Burnham’s intervention with clear enthusiasm.

Farage has long advocated a different approach to Britain’s relationship with the EU from that pursued by mainstream Conservative governments.

However, Hinsliff argued that the Conservatives may not necessarily benefit from simply opposing any discussion of closer European economic relations.

The reason is economic opinion among voters.

As reported by The Guardian, many voters believe Brexit has made them economically worse off. If that perception persists, a Conservative strategy centred solely on defending Brexit could create difficulties with voters primarily concerned about economic growth and household finances.

Hinsliff therefore suggested that Conservatives could have an interest in allowing the debate to develop rather than attempting to prevent it from gaining political momentum.

The challenge for the party would be balancing voters who strongly support Brexit with those who want closer economic relations with Europe.

Could Britain actually rejoin the EU?

Britain could seek to rejoin the European Union, but the process would be considerably more complicated than simply changing domestic policy.

Any future application would require negotiations with the EU and agreement from its member states. The UK would also have to satisfy the conditions for membership and agree the terms under which it would return.

The political circumstances would therefore be important.

A government campaigning for EU membership would need to establish a clear public mandate. It would also have to negotiate with European governments that could seek their own conditions in return for accepting Britain’s return.

There is no indication in the supplied reporting that such negotiations have begun.

Burnham’s current position is instead about reassessing Britain’s options and testing public support.

The distinction is important because the political debate has moved considerably further than formal government policy.

What does Burnham’s approach mean for the UK’s relationship with Europe?

The immediate consequence is that Brexit has once again become an open political question at the highest level of British government.

For years, the dominant Labour position was to accept Brexit as a settled fact and concentrate on improving the UK’s relationship with the EU.

Burnham has now indicated that the underlying settlement itself may need to be reconsidered.

That does not establish a timetable for rejoining the EU, nor does it guarantee that Britain will return to the single market or customs union.

It does, however, broaden the range of possibilities being discussed.

The next stage will depend on public opinion, Labour’s political strategy, economic evidence and the willingness of EU governments to negotiate.

What is the background to Britain’s Brexit relationship with the EU?

The UK voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum. The country subsequently left the EU in January 2020, followed by the end of the transition period and the introduction of the new UK-EU trading relationship.

Boris Johnson’s government negotiated the framework that subsequently governed Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the bloc.

When Labour entered government, Starmer sought a reset rather than reversal. The approach aimed to improve practical cooperation with the EU while maintaining the fundamental principles of Brexit.

The policy therefore avoided returning to the single market, customs union or free movement.

The current debate represents a departure from that cautious position.

Burnham’s intervention does not itself reverse Brexit, but it creates political space for discussing whether the existing relationship remains appropriate for Britain’s economic and political circumstances.

What could happen next for Labour and the UK?

The coming weeks are likely to be important because Burnham has indicated that public support will be assessed before the government settles on longer-term options.

The evidence gathered could determine whether Labour develops a detailed European policy before the next general election or continues with a more limited reset.

A decision to advocate full EU membership would be substantially different from proposing a customs union or closer single-market relationship.

Each option would involve different economic, political and institutional consequences.

For the moment, the most significant development is therefore not that Britain is preparing to rejoin the EU, but that the country’s future relationship with Europe is once again being openly reconsidered by the government.

What is the prediction for UK voters and businesses?

For UK voters and businesses, the immediate effect is likely to be greater political uncertainty over the country’s long-term relationship with the European Union rather than an immediate change to existing rules.

Businesses trading with EU countries may pay particular attention to whether Labour eventually proposes customs-union or single-market membership, because either could alter the regulatory and trading environment.

For voters, the debate could become an important issue before the next general election, particularly if economic concerns remain closely connected to perceptions of Brexit.

If public support for closer European integration continues to grow, Labour could face pressure to move beyond the existing reset strategy. If support remains divided, the government may instead favour incremental improvements to the current relationship.