Burnham to Tell MPs Brexit Has Done Harm Ahead of EU Summit
Prime Minister Andy Burnham is expected to tell the Commons on Monday that Brexit has done more harm than good and that it would be a "dereliction of duty" to turn down a closer relationship with the EU if one can be negotiated.
The wording was reported in advance briefing by the BBC. The BBC said he will present the choice as a duty rather than a preference. He is expected to tell MPs that the status quo is not good enough for Britain. A new deal, he will argue, could help tackle illegal immigration and boost economic growth.
That brings together two areas that are usually dealt with apart. Cooperation on immigration needs a willing partner in Brussels. Growth needs market access and regulatory alignment, where the UK and the EU follow similar rules to ease trade. Burnham is expected to present both as results that could come from the same reset.
The immediate route is the UK-EU summit. Burnham pledged at the Labour Party conference last month to explore closer ties at a summit later this year. That summit had been due in the summer. It was postponed after Sir Keir Starmer announced his resignation and has been rescheduled for next month.
The timetable matters at Westminster. Burnham is a new prime minister without a personal mandate from a general election. A set-piece statement in the Commons, a formal address to MPs, lets him set out his authority for the negotiation before he meets EU leaders. The statement creates a record. It also tests the parliamentary arithmetic, whether enough MPs will back him.
On the final goal, Burnham has left the end point open. He told the BBC last month it was "possible" a future Labour election manifesto, the party's list of promises, could offer a new in-out referendum on the EU. He has separately said Britain should consider options for its future relationship, including rejoining the bloc, according to Reuters. He made no commitment.
In a separate interview reported by Reuters, Burnham said the United Kingdom could "go all the way" and rejoin the European Union. He added that a decision on rejoining would have to wait until after a general election. The order is explicit. Exploration now, decision later, and only with the permission of voters.
On industry, Burnham has pointed to a narrower, near-term request. He said he would argue for Britain to be a "trusted partner" to the EU's "Made in Europe" scheme, as reported by Reuters. The phrase points to working alongside the scheme rather than EU membership. It is the type of sector deal that can be negotiated without reopening the constitutional question of membership.
The Conservative response is already set. Leader Kemi Badenoch said last week that reopening the Brexit debate was "a terrible idea". That gives Conservative MPs a short message for the debate after the statement. It also sets the terms for the next election if Labour goes ahead.
The broader context here is the structure Burnham is building. There are three distinct stages. A Commons statement on harm, a summit mandate to explore closer ties, and a manifesto route for any decision to rejoin. Each has a different test. The first needs a Commons majority on the day. The second needs EU agreement to talk. The third would need a manifesto promise and a referendum result.
In my view, that three-stage design is doing heavy political work. It lets Burnham meet the demands in his party for a fast reset while reassuring voters that another referendum will not be imposed without clear consent. It also sends a signal to Brussels. The EU will read the "dereliction of duty" line as a warning that London will pay a price at home if talks fail. That only helps as leverage if the summit brings practical results on growth and on returns cooperation.
A final point to keep in mind is that the risks sit in Parliament as much as in Brussels. Any talk of harm will face questions on data and on effects in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where some powers are devolved. Any hint of rejoining will face questions on mandate. Ministers will need to be precise about what is negotiated next month, what needs legislation, and what would need a referendum. Without that discipline, the debate will stay on principle rather than detail, which suits the Opposition.
