Brexit deal is not good enough for British public, says Andy Burnham

Andy Burnham’s central criticism is that the UK’s current Brexit arrangement has not delivered what voters were promised. He said Britain ended up with a harder Brexit than the 2016 referendum campaign proposed. In his view, the present deal is therefore not good enough for the country.

He linked this judgment to two practical outcomes. First, he said Brexit had weakened the economy, including by hitting British food manufacturers. Second, he said it had weakened immigration control. The small boats crisis has risen, he argued, because the UK can no longer return people to Europe in the same way.

Burnham did not propose rejoining the EU during this parliament. Instead, he called for practical steps to improve the current relationship, including progress at the UK-EU summit on 20 November. He said any future decision must follow public opinion, not be imposed by politicians.

A “harder Brexit” generally means leaving the EU with fewer shared rules and fewer automatic rights between Britain and European countries. In practical terms, that can create more checks, paperwork and limits on trade and movement. It is the opposite of keeping a close relationship that preserves many EU connections.

The article applies the phrase to the gap between the referendum campaign and the final arrangement. Burnham said the public was offered one version of Brexit but Britain ended up with a harder one. He pointed to British food manufacturers being hit and to the loss of the previous ability to return people to Europe.

The term matters because it describes the relationship’s closeness, not simply whether the UK left the EU. Burnham is not proposing rejoining during this parliament. He wants practical changes that could make the current arrangement work better, while keeping Labour’s manifesto red lines.

The 2016 UK referendum asked voters whether the country should remain in or leave the European Union. Leave won, so the result authorised the political process that eventually took Britain out of the EU. The article refers to this campaign but does not state the final vote figures.

Using established referendum results, Leave received about 51.9% of votes, while Remain received about 48.1%. In total, roughly 17.4 million people voted Leave and 16.1 million voted Remain. That produced a winning margin of about 1.3 million votes. These figures come from established public records, not the supplied article.

The result remains important because Burnham says the eventual settlement was harder than what voters were promised during the campaign. He also says the government should not rerun the referendum. Instead, he supports practical improvements to the current UK-EU relationship and says the public must decide any larger future change.

Makerfield was a strongly Leave-voting constituency in the 2016 referendum. The article states that 65% of its constituents voted to leave the EU. That local result matters because Labour MPs in Leave-voting areas fear that reopening the Brexit debate could create opportunities for Reform UK.

The figure was put directly to Burnham during the interview. He responded that he was not trying to rerun the referendum. He said the people of Makerfield should be the bosses and should decide what happens in relation to Brexit.

At the same time, Burnham argued that acknowledging the vote does not require accepting every part of the current deal. He said practical steps could improve the UK-EU relationship without proposing EU membership in this parliament. His position combines respect for the constituency’s Leave vote with criticism of the deal’s economic and immigration consequences.

Brexit changed the UK’s relationship with the EU from shared membership to a separate arrangement. That means trade and movement are no longer governed by the same automatic framework. The article highlights the consequences rather than listing every new procedure: British food manufacturers have been hit, and immigration now takes a different form.

The key mechanism is reduced alignment. Goods moving between the UK and EU can face additional requirements, while people arriving in Britain cannot be returned to European countries as they once could. Burnham said the inability to return people has contributed to the small boats crisis. These effects show how economic and migration arrangements are connected to the political deal.

The article does not quantify the trade change or list specific checks. Burnham hopes the UK-EU summit on 20 November can produce a deal benefiting British food manufacturers. He wants practical improvements, not UK re-entry into the EU during this parliament.

EU membership gave the UK a closer system for cooperation with European countries, including arrangements relevant to returning people. After Brexit, the UK was outside that membership framework. Burnham’s argument is that the resulting gap weakened Britain’s control over people arriving by small boats.

His explanation is direct: the UK cannot return people to Europe in the same way it used to, and people know that. Without an effective return route, arrivals may remain in Britain while their cases are handled. Burnham said the small boats crisis has risen since Brexit, even though controlling immigration was a major reason many people supported leaving.

The article does not describe a specific legal agreement or give return statistics. It reports Burnham’s political assessment and his support for tougher immigration rules. He also said the current Brexit deal is not good enough and favoured practical UK-EU steps to improve the arrangement.

The European Union is a political and economic union of European countries. Members cooperate through shared institutions, common rules and agreed arrangements for trade and movement. Rejoining would therefore mean becoming part of that wider system again, not simply adjusting one or two parts of the UK’s current relationship.

The difference is visible in Burnham’s position. He said he would like Britain to rejoin the EU in his lifetime, but he is not proposing that during this parliament. Instead, he wants practical steps, such as an arrangement that could help British food manufacturers. Those steps would improve selected areas without reversing the entire Brexit settlement.

Rejoining would be a much larger political change because it would overturn the decision to leave and require public support. Burnham said politicians should not move ahead of the public. For now, he supports better cooperation while keeping Labour’s manifesto red lines.