Andy Burnham is being urged to begin preparing Britain’s return to the European Union immediately, by a think tank with close links to Labour, a month before he presents a package of post-Brexit deals in Brussels.
The Institute for Public Policy Research says EU membership should be named as the government’s medium-term goal and written into departmental policy now, rather than left as one option for a future manifesto.
“The UK must again become a member of the European Union,” the report states. “Progressive and forward-leaning politicians should recognise this immediately, and say so. And the government should build this into its policy choices and plans.”
The intervention comes before Burnham travels to Brussels for a UK-EU summit on 20 November, where he hopes to conclude agreements on food and drink exports, emissions trading, energy and immigration cooperation. He told the Commons on 12 October that the deals would add “the equivalent of over 10 billion pounds per year to the UK economy by 2040”.
He also promised a “serious dialogue about the different options” once the summit is over, adding: “At every stage, the British public will be the boss.”
What he did not do was abandon the 2024 Labour manifesto, which ruled out rejoining the single market, the customs union and free movement. Burnham made clear those commitments would remain until the next election.
For us at Great British PAC, this raises a fundamental question: why is a think tank closely associated with Labour urging ministers to prepare for EU membership when voters have not given this Government a mandate to reverse Brexit?
That is the crux of it. The IPPR does not set government policy, and nothing in its report changes the law or the manifesto commitments ministers still repeat in the Commons. But a report of this kind is not written to be filed away. It sets out a sequence for departments, a communications strategy for a parliament and a destination for a government. Our concern is that the preparatory work can advance a long way before any of this is put to the country.
A report with a destination
The IPPR paper is not a technical study of border checks. It is an argument about sovereignty, and it reaches a firm conclusion. Britain, it says, lacks the scale to protect its prosperity and security alone in a world of economic and security blocs, and the EU it would join is not the union it left.
“The world Britain built its post-Brexit strategy for no longer exists,” said Harry Quilter-Pinner, the IPPR’s executive director. “That does not mean announcing another referendum tomorrow. But this means starting work to move towards this destination, building political support at home and in Europe.”
Laura Chappell, an associate director at the think tank, put the message more bluntly: “It’s time to stop talking about Brexit and focus entirely on the future.”
The IPPR’s published recommendations go further than the government’s language of practical cooperation. Ministers should name membership as the goal when they present the options. They should adopt what the authors call a “new political language” and a communications strategy for the whole parliament. They should build a European Defence Alliance founded on British satellite communications, open the UK’s procurement market in return for British content counting as European, and create a “Democratic Resilience Compact” on intelligence sharing.
Only once those steps have shifted opinion should ministers seek a mandate to join, through a referendum or a manifesto commitment, ideally agreed across party lines.
The small print
The report is candid about the weakness of the mandate it wants ministers to claim.
Polling by Persuasion UK, commissioned for the IPPR, put support for joining at 52 per cent and staying out at 29 per cent, with 10 per cent undecided and 9 per cent saying they would not vote. Among those expressing a view, the split is 64 to 36. A separate conjoint experiment, which forced voters to weigh benefits against costs, produced a narrower 52 to 48 in favour.
The authors describe the lead as “real, but soft”. Their stress tests found that news coverage of high budget payments to Brussels, or a commitment to adopt the euro, was each capable of cutting support by about eight percentage points.
They also acknowledge the obstacle on the other side of the Channel. Unless the EU believes British commitment is “politically durable”, it will hedge against a future reversal, “charging us, in other words, a ‘Farage premium'”.
That is not the only cost left open. The House of Commons Library notes that a returning UK would not be guaranteed the opt-outs it once held on the euro, Schengen and the budget rebate. Accession requires unanimous agreement from member states and the consent of the European Parliament.
The report’s own evidence also undercuts the simplest version of its case. It found that 41 per cent of 2016 Leave voters believe Brexit has had a negative impact, yet 69 per cent of them would still vote to stay out. Believing a decision was badly executed is not the same as wanting it reversed.
We have consistently argued that a favourable headline polling figure is not the same as a durable democratic mandate for rejoining the European Union. That is our political reading of this evidence, not a claim that polling settles the constitutional question. What the polling does establish is narrower and more awkward for the report’s authors: support moves by eight points on the question of money, and nearly seven in ten Leave voters have not shifted at all. A Government that treats those numbers as a green light would be reading them generously.
The point is not that the IPPR is barred from making its case. It is entitled to, and it has made it openly. The point is that its timetable places the machinery of the state behind a destination the public has not endorsed. If membership is to be the goal, that should be argued in a manifesto, voted on, and costed in public. Not assembled quietly in departmental plans first.
Who decided what
The report arrives after a decade in which the official position has moved more than once.
In January, the government told a petition signed by more than 111,000 people that the UK “will not be rejoining the EU”. That was Keir Starmer’s administration. Starmer announced his resignation in June, and Burnham replaced him in July.
At Labour conference in September, Burnham said Brexit had “done more harm than good”. In October he opened the question of the long-term relationship, while keeping the manifesto red lines for this parliament. He has declined to rule out a future manifesto commitment on rejoining, and has said a referendum “wouldn’t be the right thing to do right now”.
The IPPR paper follows a similar call from the Tony Blair Institute in September. Neither body sets government policy. Both are treated by Westminster as indicators of where the party’s thinking may go next, and the IPPR’s recommendations are designed to move departments before any public vote is held.
The response
A government spokesperson said: “We are building an ambitious, close relationship with the EU that will strengthen our economy and create more opportunities for young people and communities across the whole UK.”
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, told the Commons that Burnham was “unpicking the deal this country signed with the EU a decade after the referendum”. She added: “He is not going to get a better deal. The EU are tough negotiators”, and accused him of having “already revealed his entire negotiating hand”.
Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, welcomed the prime minister’s recognition of the damage done by Brexit and pressed him to go further by dropping the red lines.
Nigel Farage said Burnham had “opened the door to Reform in the most extraordinary way” by reopening the question, and warned that a rejoin campaign would “lead to increased division in communities”.
Great British PAC says
Our concern is not that a think tank has published another report calling for Britain to rejoin the European Union. Our concern is that the political groundwork for reversing Brexit may be laid long before British voters are given a clear say.
We believe sovereignty means the ability of the British people to decide, through Parliament and the ballot box, who governs them and under what rules. The British people voted to leave the European Union in 2016. Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto subsequently ruled out rejoining the single market, the customs union and restoring freedom of movement. Those were explicit commitments made to voters, and we believe they should not be quietly set aside through a process that has not been openly presented to the electorate.
We believe democratic accountability requires that any change of this magnitude is put to the public in explicit terms, with the question, the cost and the consequences set out before a campaign begins, not after. The report’s own polling shows why that matters. When voters are told about budget payments to Brussels or a commitment to adopt the euro, support falls. Those are precisely the details that a review can leave vague and a referendum cannot.
Steve Wright, Campaign Lead for Brexit at Great British PAC, said:
“Every single poll conducted on the implications of rejoining, including those conducted by Persuasion UK on behalf of the IPPR, have shown that the British public do not want to be members of the EU in reality. As soon as any of the rules of membership are presented, including those that were exactly the same when we were members before, the majority swings back to staying out. This is all just a repeat of 2016, with the obsessed pro-EU activist minority using every lever to try to propagandise the British public into shutting up and doing what they are told.”
We believe the financial obligations deserve to be published in full. The report does not put a figure on the annual contribution Britain might be expected to make, the financial implications of losing its former budget rebate, or the wider costs and obligations that could accompany renewed EU membership. Full membership would restore British representation and voting rights in EU institutions; the regulatory alignment options the report also weighs would not, and could mean accepting rules without an equivalent say. The Commons Library confirms that the old opt-outs are not guaranteed. Ministers should say what they expect to pay before they ask anyone to support a destination.
We believe independent decision-making is not an abstraction. It determines whether Britain sets its own trade policy, its own rules on artificial intelligence and financial services, and its own approach to borders and migration. The report acknowledges that membership would constrain divergence in those areas. That is a legitimate argument for the authors to make. It is not a decision that should be taken on the public’s behalf.
We will continue to challenge any suggestion that the case has been made when the public has not been asked, and we will continue to press for transparency over the costs, timescales and constitutional consequences of any move towards EU membership.
What happens next
The 20 November summit will be judged on what is actually signed: the food and drink agreement, the emissions trading link, the youth experience scheme, data sharing on immigration gangs, and whether British firms are treated as European under the EU’s “Made in Europe” rules.
The review that follows will be judged on three things. Whether its terms of reference include membership. Whether its costs, including budget contributions and any commitment on the euro, are published. And whether parliament is asked to approve the mandate before any referendum or manifesto pledge is drafted.
Until then, ministers are asking the public to trust a process while declining to state its destination. The IPPR has stated its destination plainly. The Government has not.
We will continue to challenge any attempt to move Britain towards EU membership without full transparency over the costs, the consequences for British sovereignty and a clear democratic mandate.
Britain voted to leave. Any Government seeking to reverse that decision must make its case openly to the British people.
