Brexit betrayal: Andy Burnham branded an enemy of democracy

Show summary Hide summary

• How Burnham’s rhetoric shifted after the by-election
• What rejoining the EU would mean for British sovereignty
  • Policy areas affected
• Immigration: why freedom of movement matters
  • Comparing EU members and non-members
• Economy and industry: would rejoining revive British manufacturing?
• The EU’s evolving role in domestic politics and media regulation
• Devolution, “Manchesterism,” and the limits of local power
• Democratic trade-offs and the political trust question

When Andy Burnham pledged to respect the 2016 referendum while campaigning in Makerfield, his words sounded like a clear promise to voters who had supported Leave. Yet, in a recent speech to Labour activists in Liverpool he cast Brexit itself as one of the major problems Britain faces today and said he would lay out options at the next UK–EU summit that include everything from closer trading ties to full re-entry into the European Union.

The contrast between those two messages has provoked sharp questions about political trust and the limits of democratic choice. If the prime minister intends to reopen the question of Britain’s relationship with the EU, the debate moves from party strategy to constitutional stakes: who decides Britain’s future, and how permanent should a referendum result be?

How Burnham’s rhetoric shifted after the by-election

Burnham’s climb to Downing Street followed a dramatic by-election victory, one built on assurances that appealed to a Leave-leaning electorate. Reframing Brexit as a problem and signalling openness to rejoin EU institutions marks a clear shift in tone. That pivot has prompted accusations from critics that he is sidelining voter wishes in favor of a policy agenda drawn from the Labour movement’s euro-friendly wing.

• Promise vs. policy: Voters in Makerfield were told their choice would be respected; subsequent comments suggest that status is negotiable.
• Political calculation: Speaking to party activists in Liverpool allowed Burnham to speak more freely about options his Makerfield pledge downplayed.
• Strategic ambiguity: Presenting a menu of options—from Customs Union to full EU membership—lets the government sound flexible while keeping major change on the table.

What rejoining the EU would mean for British sovereignty

At the heart of the debate is sovereignty: the extent to which national elected bodies make binding decisions on immigration, energy, trade and industrial strategy. Returning to any of the EU’s core frameworks would involve ceding some of that control to common rules and institutions.

Policy areas affected

• Immigration and border policy: Rules like freedom of movement constrain unilateral border controls.
• Energy and climate regulation: EU-wide targets and laws shape national energy markets and emissions policy.
• Trade and industry standards: Membership in the Single Market binds countries to shared regulatory regimes.
• Agriculture and fisheries: Common policies dictate limits and subsidies that affect domestic producers.

Bringing these matters under EU jurisdiction would limit the ability of Westminster and devolved parliaments to craft independent responses—changes that would be irreversible without another major political push.

Immigration: why freedom of movement matters

Immigration is consistently rated by the public as one of the most important issues facing Britain. For many voters, control over who can live and work in the country sits at the center of national decision-making.

Re-entering the Single Market or the EU would likely mean re-accepting aspects of freedom of movement. That change would reduce the UK’s capacity to set independent immigration quotas and policies tailored to its economic and social circumstances.

Comparing EU members and non-members

• Several EU states experienced significant non-EU migration growth after 2020, driven by labor gaps and refugee movements; these trends underline that leaving the EU did not automatically shield the UK from migration pressures.
• However, the UK regained the sovereign right to choose immigration levers—policy tools unavailable to EU members who are bound by shared rules and mutual obligations.

Economy and industry: would rejoining revive British manufacturing?

One common argument for closer ties with the EU is that membership would restore economic dynamism. Burnham and other critics of Brexit argue that leaving the bloc damaged trade and industry. Yet the economic picture is mixed.

• Recent growth trends show the UK performing competitively against some EU economies, even where headline indicators struggle.
• Re-adoption of EU-wide economic rules would also lock the UK into EU policy frameworks on climate and regulation—areas critics warn could entrench costly measures that hamper manufacturing.
• Membership would limit independent fiscal and industrial policy choices without guaranteeing the industrial revival proponents promise.

In short, rejoining might remove certain trade frictions, but it would also reintroduce constraints that could restrict the government’s ability to pursue bespoke industrial strategies.

The EU’s evolving role in domestic politics and media regulation

Beyond policy mechanics, the EU’s institutional behavior and recent initiatives raise constitutional questions about democratic autonomy. Brussels has increased its interventions in national political contests and developed regulatory tools with cross-border reach.

• Election influence: The EU has mechanisms to monitor or comment on national elections and parties it deems problematic, a practice critics view as intrusion into sovereign political life.
• Digital regulation: Laws such as the Digital Services Act and proposed measures framed as protecting democratic debate extend EU influence over platforms and content moderation.
• Technocratic appointments: Past EU responses to economic and political crises have included support for unelected administrations in member states, a practice that fuels concerns about democratic accountability.

For those who feared Brussels’ reach in 2016, the EU of 2026 appears to have adopted even broader tools for shaping the political landscape across the continent.

Devolution, “Manchesterism,” and the limits of local power

Burnham’s vision of shifting power out of Whitehall—often branded as a northern devolution agenda—promises greater local control over day-to-day services. But the distinction between local autonomy and national sovereignty matters: devolved authorities can manage transport, waste and local planning, yet they cannot set immigration policy or break EU-level regulatory commitments.

• Local control over services would coexist with external constraints if the UK rejoined EU frameworks.
• Devolution combined with EU membership could mean regions have autonomy for small-scale issues while major levers remain decided at the EU level.

Democratic trade-offs and the political trust question

When politicians make conflicting promises—one to a local electorate and another to party supporters—public trust erodes. The prospect of reopening the Brexit settlement without a clear democratic mandate raises practical and ethical concerns about how political leaders respect referendums and voter expectations.

At stake is not only policy direction but the sense that citizens’ choices matter. If a government can overturn a mass referendum’s outcome without direct public endorsement, that precedent changes how future votes are valued and how citizens relate to representative institutions.

Fraser Myers is deputy editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast.

You might also like:

• Labour safe seats: no constituency is guaranteed
• Andy Burnham likened to Keir Starmer in jeans
• Andy Burnham accused of being dangerous and undermining democracy
• Keir Starmer accused of selling out Britain, critics say
• Makerfield result: what it means for Labour, Reform and Restore