Andy Burnham’s flirtation with rejoining the EU is about political manoeuvring, not deep-seated principle. This is simply the next stage of our new Prime Minister’s plan to squeeze the smaller parties: he turned left to seize Green votes, and now he is targeting the Liberal Democrats.
At the same time, he hopes that talking about the EU will prevent the Conservatives from making further ground on the economy, government borrowing, welfare and energy. Perhaps, to be cynical, he also hopes a Brexit re-run might allow Nigel Farage to keep the Right divided while Labour reunites the Left.
It may work, at least in the short term. But it comes with major risks.
The prospect of reopening the battle that consumed years of political and parliamentary effort after 2016, and left voters thoroughly exhausted of tit-for-tat technicalities, is hardly heartening.
Choosing to return to that fracas for narrow party political gain would mean gambling that the issue isn’t sufficient to divert and then consume Burnham’s time in government. He might do well to ask Theresa May how far she was able to get on delivering her domestic agenda while also juggling the question of our relationship with the EU.
For that matter, he could ask the version of Burnham that was campaigning to become Makerfield’s MP back in May, who said: “Brexit has been damaging, but I also believe the last thing we should do right now is re-run those arguments. Britain will be stuck in a permanent rut if we’re just constantly arguing… I am not proposing that the UK considers rejoining the EU. I respect the decision that was made at the referendum and it is going to undermine everything I have said about strengthening democracy if we don’t respect that vote.”
Even if we disregard this about-face, there is a more fundamental problem. Rejoining would run directly counter to the Prime Minister’s own policy agenda, preventing him from doing many of the things that he and his party say are essential to reform our country.
On the steps of Downing Street, he promised the country “a new political model and a new economic model”, reversing “wrong turns” he believes were taken in the 1980s: “Political power was centralised, economic power privatised, large parts of the country de-industrialised.” Since then, he has set out a raft of policies to pursue this – many of which would be obstructed were we to rejoin the EU.
At the top of the list is localism. Burnham is Mr Devolution. It’s his main thing: power should flow from the centre, down to cities, towns and local voters. He said on day one: “We will take power out of here [Westminster] and carry it into every postcode in the land so that they can do more.” EU membership would mean the very opposite: power flowing away from voters – away even from Parliament and the Prime Minister himself – to Brussels.
On trade, farming, energy, transport, tech, tax and more, decisions would move further away from the people, not closer. If his diagnosis that much of the disillusionment and dysfunction in our politics comes from a lack of local control is correct, it makes no sense to shift power even further away rather than bringing it closer.
Next is fiscal policy. For months, the Chancellor has been battling to find a way to square the circle of the public finances, the outcome of which he will present in this week’s Budget. Welfare spending and government borrowing are booming, defence is in need of more funding, the tax burden is at a record high and the Exchequer is struggling to make ends meet.
Against that backdrop, it would be madness to spend £22 billion (or potentially up to £30bn) a year on EU membership fees. So far, Burnham has been canny in his framing of difficult financial choices – most notably, pruning the pensions triple lock to provide for social care – but handing a fortune to Brussels while money is tight at home would be indefensible.
A host of other policy areas would be undone by rejoining, too. Labour’s flagship education policy of charging VAT on independent school fees would become illegal and have to be reversed, after all the disruption of introducing it. The Prime Minister’s cut to VAT on domestic energy bills would be forbidden by EU VAT rules, too.
Only last Friday, Burnham and Healey extended the suspension of import tariffs on over 250 products as part of a plan to give “breathing space” for businesses to “invest, innovate and create good jobs”. If we rejoin the EU, not only will we have to reverse such measures, but no Prime Minister or Chancellor will ever again have the Right to determine our trade policy.
The list goes on and on.
The Government’s target of cutting the burden of regulation on business by 25 per cent? Obstructed by a requirement to follow EU regulations in full. A “buy British” preference for public procurement? Unlawful discrimination against other EU suppliers. Helping Neets back into work? Good luck with that if you vastly increase the labour supply through free movement. Harnessing AI for economic growth under an innovative AI security regime? Nope, we would be bound into the EU AI Act instead.
Playing footsie with Rejoin may be tactically cute. Perhaps it will push Labour above 30 per cent in the polls, squeezing the Greens and the Lib Dems down that bit further. But having entered Downing Street promising power to the people and an end to business as usual, it would also mean Burnham delivering the very opposite.