Should Britain reverse Brexit? Whether or not Andy Burnham really wants to have this debate, the battle over Rejoin has already begun. That much is clear from the launch of the Stay Out campaign — which is run by Oliver Lewis, a key figure from Vote Leave, the winning side of the 2016 Brexit referendum.

If that’s not enough to warn Rejoiners what’s heading their way, then they should take a look at Stay Out’s first campaign video. It makes three key points: on the greatly increased cost of EU membership; the restoration of free movement for 450 million EU citizens to the UK; and the political risk of restarting a fight on the most divisive issue in recent British history.

Already, there are signs that Burnham is backing away from the conflict. In response to a warning from David Cameron not to restart the Brexit wars, the current PM said “no one is talking about rejoining”.

No one? What about Burnham himself when just weeks ago he expressed his desire for Britain to rejoin the EU in his lifetime. Or when he repeatedly ruled out rejoining, but only on this side of a general election. Or when he said that a Labour manifesto pledge to hold a Rejoin referendum was “possible“.

There’s no denying the amount of leg that Burnham has shown to Rejoiners in his party and across Remain Britain. So what explains his sudden coyness?

When he first became prime minister, he was determined to concentrate on domestic matters (unlike his globe-hopping predecessor). It may be that he’s now realising the capacity of European matters to overwhelm the bandwidth of the British government. After all, apart from Brexit, how many people remember what David Cameron’s time in office was all about? Or Theresa May’s? Any attempt to reverse Brexit could have the same obliterating effect on Burnham’s legacy.

But having so casually opened the Pandora’s Box marked “Rejoin”, shutting it will be harder. Burnham might be able to fob off his supporters with a halfway house like UK membership of the single market or the customs union. But the former would mean accepting free movement and the latter sacrificing the UK’s independent trade policy. Furthermore, neither is a complete solution to trade frictions with the EU. Both options are a hard sell, which is why they gathered so little momentum after the 2016 referendum result.

The most realistic option is a closer trade deal based on dynamic alignment with EU regulations. But that’s all that Keir Starmer was after — and Burnham’s big talk on Europe promised a whole lot more. He therefore finds himself in a strategically awkward position in which he can neither easily advance nor retreat. And that’s particularly unfortunate for Burnham, because he hates to be pinned down.

When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in 2007 he allowed press speculation about an early general election to get out of control. When he drew back at the last moment, he was accused of bottling his first big decision in the top job. Having been a witness to that debacle, Andy Burnham was determined not to make the same mistake — which is why he dismisses any suggestion that he might call a snap election.

And yet on European policy he’s falling into precisely the same pattern of raising, then dashing, expectations. Instead of Bottler Brown, say bonjour to Bottler Burnham.

---

Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

---