Burnham says ‘public will be the boss’ in any future decision about closer relationship with the EU – as it happened

Burnham is proposing a calm review of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. He argues that the current arrangement is not good enough for growth, immigration control, national values or security. He wants serious talks after the forthcoming summit, without ruling out closer long-term options.

The possible options include better cooperation on immigration data and, eventually, reconsidering single-market membership. Burnham says the UK should examine what relationship best serves the country. He also says there are no assumptions about the final destination and that Labour’s current manifesto commitments would be respected.

The public would have the decisive role. Burnham repeatedly said British voters would be “the boss” at every stage of any renegotiation. He believes public opinion currently supports a pragmatic approach, but the article does not specify whether that would involve a referendum or another public mandate.

The EU single market is a common economic area where goods, services, money and people can move with fewer barriers. Countries inside it follow shared rules so businesses can trade under broadly consistent standards. It is designed to make cross-border commerce easier and more predictable.

For the UK, joining would mean restoring a much closer economic relationship than the current post-Brexit arrangement. The UK would need to follow many single-market rules and accept the legal conditions attached to participation. That would affect trade, regulation and migration policy rather than simply changing one agreement.

The political significance would be substantial. Labour’s manifesto, as described in the article, ruled out joining the single market during this Parliament. Burnham nevertheless refused to rule it out as a long-term option, while saying the public would decide what relationship Britain should ultimately have.

Freedom of movement allows citizens of participating European countries to live, work and study across the single market, subject to its rules. It is treated as one of the market’s basic freedoms, alongside movement of goods, services and capital. That connection makes single-market membership politically sensitive after Brexit.

The article gives the direct mechanism: being in the single market would mean the UK having to comply with freedom of movement for EU nationals. This is why Labour MPs challenged Burnham to promise that Britain would not accept it. They also asked whether his approach could require the UK to join the euro, which he did not directly address.

Burnham said he would honour the manifesto and its current red lines. However, he would not give an unconditional long-term assurance against freedom of movement. He said future options must be examined and that the British public would be the boss of whatever was eventually decided.

Brexit removed the UK from several European information-sharing arrangements. The article highlights Eurodac, which stores biometric data about asylum seekers. It also names the Schengen information systems, which carry alerts about criminals and stolen goods, and the European arrest warrant database, which provides immediate alerts about fugitives.

The missing access affects practical enforcement. Without Eurodac, British authorities cannot as quickly check whether someone claiming asylum in the UK previously applied elsewhere in the EU. Without the other systems, police and security agencies lose rapid access to alerts about people, criminal activity and stolen property. Burnham accepted that this weakened immigration control.

Burnham said the UK is in a weaker position than just over 10 years ago. He reported that Ursula von der Leyen was open to discussing restored immigration data sharing. He promised to work towards a practical arrangement at the EU-UK summit in November.

The EU remains highly important to the UK economy. Using recent official trade statistics, the EU accounts for roughly two-fifths of UK exports and about half of UK imports. It is also a major source of foreign investment and a large market for British companies. These figures come from established official data rather than this article, which does not provide economic totals.

Trade supports jobs through exporting firms, supply chains, transport, finance and services. However, there is no single agreed number for jobs that “depend on” EU trade. Estimates differ because they count direct employment, indirect supply-chain work or wider economic effects. Investment also supports employment and productivity, but its impact is spread across many sectors.

This economic scale explains why Burnham links the EU relationship to growth. The article says he wants to consider deeper partnership options after the summit. The argument is that reducing barriers could support business, while any change would involve significant political and legal choices.

When Brexit took effect, the UK moved into a different relationship with the EU. The article says Britain lost access to Eurodac, Schengen information systems and the European arrest warrant database. It also lost the immigration control associated with the previous relationship, leaving the country in a weaker position according to Burnham.

The practical consequences are clear. British officials cannot use Eurodac as quickly to identify earlier asylum applications elsewhere in the EU. Police also lost immediate access to European alerts about criminals, stolen goods and fugitives. These changes created areas where cooperation became less direct and where new arrangements might be useful.

A government could therefore seek renegotiation for practical reasons. Burnham cites growth, immigration control, values and security. He says Ursula von der Leyen is open to discussing restored immigration data sharing, and he wants progress at the November summit. He also proposes a wider long-term review rather than an immediate change.

A UK government can change an international relationship by deciding its objectives, negotiating with foreign governments and signing a new agreement. Ministers lead that process through departments and diplomacy. But an agreement cannot automatically change domestic law: Parliament may need to approve legislation, funding or treaty arrangements before the changes operate in Britain.

Parliament also scrutinises ministers and can reject, amend or delay implementing measures. An election can give a government a mandate if its manifesto clearly promises a particular policy. A referendum is different. It is not automatically required for every treaty change; it would take legislation or a clear political commitment to hold one.

In this case, Burnham says the public should be the boss at every stage. He also says the Labour manifesto’s current red lines would be honoured. Any deeper change would therefore depend on negotiations, parliamentary decisions and the political mandate a government receives, potentially including a public vote if one were proposed.