Andy Burnham faced a fresh political storm over Brexit on Wednesday after Kemi Badenoch accused the Prime Minister of reviving the European debate at the worst possible moment for a government preparing to deliver its Budget.
Opening Prime Minister’s Questions, the Conservative leader seized on Burnham’s renewed calls for closer ties with the European Union, questioning whether he had a consistent position on Britain’s future relationship with the bloc and accusing Labour of failing to respect the result of the 2016 referendum.
“Does the Prime Minister still agree with himself?” Badenoch asked, attacking what she portrayed as confusion at the heart of the government’s approach to Europe.
“It is the Chancellor’s big week, and the Prime Minister popped up on telly and opened his mouth without engaging his brain,” she said, criticising Burnham for reopening the debate over freedom of movement.
The confrontation threatens to revive one of the most divisive arguments in British politics just as the government seeks to focus attention on the economy and its fiscal plans. For Labour, the challenge is to pursue closer economic relations with Europe without appearing to undermine the referendum result. For the Conservatives, the opportunity is to portray the government as divided and distracted.
Burnham rejected Badenoch’s criticism, pointing to an upcoming UK-EU summit as an opportunity to secure improved terms for Britain.
“It may have escaped the Right Honourable Lady’s notice that we are three weeks away from a UK-EU summit,” he said, arguing that the meeting offered a chance to negotiate a better deal.
But the response did little to settle the central question raised by the Conservative leader: where Labour’s ambitions for closer European integration would end.
“Sounds like the Prime Minister doesn’t know if he agrees with himself or not,” Badenoch retorted, as Labour MPs attempted to drown her out.
She accused Burnham of failing to respect the public’s decision to leave the EU, pointing to his longstanding support for remaining in the bloc and his subsequent calls for Britain to rejoin.
Burnham campaigned for Remain and has previously said he wanted the UK to rejoin the EU “in my lifetime”. He reiterated his desire for closer relations earlier this week, giving Badenoch fresh ammunition to challenge the government’s position.
“This country voted to Leave the EU and we should respect that decision,” she said, urging the Prime Minister to concentrate on repairing the economy rather than reopening Brexit divisions.
Burnham insisted that Labour’s manifesto commitments remained unchanged.
“The red lines in the manifesto are firmly in place,” he said, arguing that his approach was about securing a better deal for Britain rather than reversing the referendum result.
“I am getting a better deal,” he added, citing businesses that support his plans for negotiations with Brussels.
Yet he repeatedly declined to give the categorical assurances Badenoch demanded on whether the government would rule out a future referendum on rejoining the single market or restoring freedom of movement.
The distinction matters. Closer economic co-operation with the EU can involve changes to trade arrangements and regulatory relationships without necessarily requiring Britain to reverse Brexit. But questions over the single market and freedom of movement touch directly on issues that dominated the referendum campaign.
Burnham’s refusal to close off those possibilities leaves Labour exposed to accusations that it is seeking to revisit the substance of Brexit without explicitly challenging the referendum result.
For Badenoch, the exchange offered a chance to place the government on the defensive at a moment when the Chancellor’s economic decisions should dominate the political agenda.
For Burnham, the challenge is more delicate: to argue that Britain can improve its relationship with Europe while maintaining the commitments on which Labour was elected.
With the Budget approaching and the UK-EU summit looming, Wednesday’s clash suggests that Brexit remains a potent political fault line — one that neither side appears willing to leave entirely behind.
Leave a Comment