Burnham signals EU reset, but substance remains unclear on Britain's future

Andy Burnham returned from his summer break with a message that broke sharply from a decade of British political orthodoxy. The new prime minister called for a closer relationship with the European Union and, in a statement that would have been unthinkable under his predecessors, acknowledged that the Kremlin had almost certainly interfered in the 2016 Brexit referendum. Conservative governments had long denied any evidence of Russian involvement. Keir Starmer, his immediate predecessor, had tried to treat Brexit as a closed historical chapter rather than an ongoing source of economic damage. Burnham's words signaled something different—a willingness to reconsider Britain's place in Europe. Yet for all the rhetorical warmth, the substance of what he actually intends to do remains opaque.

The shift in tone reflects a genuine change in British public sentiment. A decade after the referendum, research suggests UK GDP per head is between 6% and 8% lower than it would have been had Britain remained in the EU. A YouGov poll from January 2025 found that only 11% of people believed Brexit had been more successful than harmful. More recently, the Messina Group reported that half of voters would like to rejoin the EU altogether. During his Labour conference speech, Burnham acknowledged that Brexit had caused "more harm than good" and suggested, somewhat cryptically, that Britain could go "all the way"—language that some interpreted as openness to full EU membership. But he has offered no roadmap, no timeline, and no clear commitment beyond a promise of a "longer-term discussion" about the relationship.

Full EU membership would require another referendum, a prospect that terrifies most politicians. Reigniting the Brexit debate would split the country again, reducing a complex technical and political question to a binary choice that has already fractured the nation once. Even the Liberal Democrats, the most pro-EU of Britain's major parties, describe EU membership as a "long-term goal" rather than an immediate priority, preferring instead to campaign for rejoining the single market and customs union. It is hard to imagine any sitting prime minister wanting to fight an election on a pledge to hold another referendum on EU membership.

Other options exist that would not require a vote. Britain could theoretically pursue a softer arrangement—rejoining the single market and customs union while remaining outside the EU itself. But this would mean breaking the red lines that Burnham has said he will maintain. And there is a democratic problem embedded in such an arrangement: if Britain accepted single market rules without EU membership, it would have to follow laws it had no power to shape. As one Guardian correspondent noted, once you acknowledge that democratic deficit, the case for full EU membership becomes harder to ignore.

The political landscape in Europe has also shifted since 2016. Far-right parties are gaining ground in France and Germany. The EU has adopted protectionist policies through its Made in Europe agenda, a series of laws designed to bolster European industry and reduce dependence on Chinese imports. For British manufacturers, this creates a genuine problem: goods classified as non-European could face legal barriers in EU markets. Burnham may conclude that Britain's interests are better served from inside the tent than outside it, shaping these policies rather than being subject to them.

For now, the government has confirmed that a UK-EU summit will take place in November. Negotiators are expected to discuss trade deals on food and drink, emissions trading arrangements, plans to link energy systems, and a youth mobility scheme. These are the same topics that were discussed at last year's talks. In Brussels, observers note a pattern: the UK has been talking loudly about a reset with the EU while changing very little. The rhetoric has warmed, but the substance has stayed the same. The question that will define Burnham's premiership is whether the words will eventually be followed by action, or whether they will remain what they are now—signals of intent without the hard choices that would make them real.