Given that one month ago I myself was arguing<\/a> that silence reflected a likely low profile for EU affairs for Burnham, I am forced to reconsider my position, which I happily do, even if I’m not yet fully sold on how far this new process will go.<\/p>\n Burnham’s speech highlighted the degree to which we shouldn’t oversell the move right now. The section on the EU was pretty short and vague in its intent, coming after a much more impassioned and developed exploration of social care; even electoral reform got more of a commitment than Europe.<\/p>\n But Burnham did move the dial in saying that Brexit had done “more harm than good”. With that came the implication that red lines might have to change or go, something confirmed by subsequent remarks<\/a> that leave all options on the table.<\/p>\n As someone who’s spent years saying we need to have a public debate about what the UK’s relationship with the EU should be, including the costs and benefits of different options, it’s very odd to hear an actual Prime Minister say just that, and I guess I should feel more positive than I do.<\/p>\n Part of my hesitancy is that there’s a big gap between saying you want a debate to see if you can find a consensus picture and actually doing that. As we know, there has been a lot of talking about what individuals would like to see happen (as last week<\/a>) which largely involves ignoring inconveniences like other people having ideas (and votes) too. Like the EU itself.<\/p>\n On this, Burnham has not said much, although there appears to be some recognition that there’s no point in coming up with a plan that won’t fly in Brussels or national capitals.<\/p>\n Moreover, there is also a tendency in British discussions to date to treat ‘Europe’ as a separate box from the rest of politics. If we might learn one thing from Brexit, then it is that involvement in the system of European integration comes with extensive and deep entanglements across the full range of economic and political life, in ways that aren’t immediately apparent. To flip that on its head, any discussion of European policy will also have to consider government policy in general, since the former can only be sustainable if it is married to the latter and the conceptualisation of the UK’s development.<\/p>\n Here, Burnham has been less explicit and given the relative disconnect of social care or electoral reform from the EU’s remit we might wonder if there becomes a splitting off of European work to allow the other items to press on.<\/p>\n And finally, despite everything we’ve experienced in the past decade, we risk forgetting that most people don’t have strongly held views on European integration or British policy. Preferences are relatively shallow and liable to shift, depending on what information you give people, a point highlighted by some polling over the summer by Britain Elects<\/a>. More pertinently, the ability of campaigners to reframe options in active political debates was well demonstrated by the Leave campaign in 2016, building on long experience in articulating eurosceptic arguments; something largely absent in Remain.<\/p>\n This is perhaps where Burnham has been least adventurous. He seems to know his own mind on much of his politics and has previously expressed a desire for much closer EU relations, but here seems determined at this stage not to prejudge a debate where a consensus view might not quite match his.<\/p>\n Fair enough, but in the prospective of having to defend going across red lines, up to and including rejoining, there needs to be much more development of the rhetorical lines and arguments that will convey the logic and imperative of that change.<\/p>\n Go back to the conference speech and the section on the EU, which I include here:<\/p>\n Later this year, there will be a UK-EU summit where one of the issues on the agenda will be how we best work together on immigration.<\/p>\n And beyond that we will work to secure gains for our industries most harmed by Brexit.<\/p>\n Conference, these are important concrete steps.<\/p>\n But they are not enough.<\/p>\n I say this to you and the country.<\/p>\n We will not give Britain the clear path we need into the rest of the century until we decide on a long-term relationship with what is still our largest market.<\/p>\n I cannot say to you truthfully that where we are is good enough.<\/p>\n Brexit has done more harm than good.<\/p>\n We need to restore a higher level of growth and prosperity for Britain.<\/p>\n So, I will take the opportunity around the summit to lay out to you, to lay out to the country, what I believe the different options are for Britain\u2019s long-term relationship with our European partners.<\/p>\n And there are different options.<\/p>\n And I will see if we can find consensus around one which will give us clarity about our position, and the future of the continent we live in.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So is this just about ‘growth and prosperity’ and ‘markets’, or does ‘the future of the continent’ cover something more? Burnham will recall that owning the rational argument in 2016 didn’t cut it against the emotional lines that Leave advanced, but we wait to see if he has his own take to bring to the matter.<\/p>\n So we wait for some more flesh on the bones of this moment. Potentially, it opens up a path to major movement in British policy, even if that seems likely to be limited to manifesto commitments in the general election to break current red lines. Certainly, the initial response has been at the better end of expectations, with generally positive reactions in Labour and more muted lines from Reform and the Conservatives (partly reflecting their focus on the pension triple lock, where they think there’s more traction).<\/p>\n The possible unblocking<\/a> of the reset negotiations to allow for a late November summit is an important contextual development here, since it is a marker of how serious Burnham is about moving forward. The uncertainty here is that university fees seems to be parked in the youth mobility deal, something that had been a big EU ask: if it has been disconnected, then that suggests the EU is also up for moving things promptly and amicably. If that turns out not to be the case, then we are back to underlining the centrality of EU preferences in all this.<\/p>\n In the meantime, it might be helpful to start laying the groundwork for what’s coming. The following graphics offer a summary of possible models and some key points to keep in mind as the debate starts. As ever, my interest in how we might move towards a grounded and resilient relationship that works for most people means that I’ve got to step up on providing useful and impartial support, so if you have any questions or queries then do just ask.<\/p>\n PDF: https:\/\/bit.ly\/UshGraphic150<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n PDF: https:\/\/bit.ly\/UshGraphic149<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Well, it feels like I picked a good time to start trying to blog more. Andy Burnham’s speech to the Labour party conference has fired the gun on something that felt pretty unlikely just a few weeks ago: a debate … Continue reading \n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/EUatOU\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/UK-EU-Options.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/EUatOU\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Discussing-the-UKs-options.jpg\")