Andy Burnham has spent the best part of a decade telling the public that the devolution of power is key to a successful country. As mayor of Greater Manchester, he frequently argued against power remaining centralized in Westminster, and achieved meaningful success with the powers he managed to devolve. In his early days as prime minister, Burnham attempted to embed Manchesterism into his national policy, setting up Number 10 North to “oversee the biggest rebalancing of power our country has ever seen”, and looking to deliver growth by devolving power.

Now, it appears Burnham has carried out his first great U-turn, saying today that he is open to Britain going “all the way” and rejoining the European Union. But the question was settled just over a decade ago by referendum, and the public decisively voted to leave. While the precise deal the country has ended up with can be regarded as little other than a failure, in particular due to the Northern Ireland settlement and the remaining alignment to many EU regulations, Britain’s position outside that union should not be called into question.

Burnham knew this was the case as recently as May. Writing in the Times, he said that “our relentless focus now should be on domestic issues, and fixing our own underlying problems, rather than on re-running divisive arguments about rejoining the European Union.” He even went so far as to say that the traditional parties of government failed because they were “too bound into a model of globalization”.

Speaking to the BBC at the time, Burnham said he “respect[s] the decision that was made at the referendum”, adding that it would “undermine everything I’ve said about strengthening democracy if we don’t respect that vote”.

How can these comments, and his desire for accelerated devolution, be squared with a wish to open the door to a full rejoining of the EU, whereby decision-making powers will be outsourced to Brussels, taking power even further away from the people he represents? How can he reconcile accepting governance from a foreign bureaucracy while embarking on a path of mass nationalization of industry, utilities and public transport, which has the overt aim of giving the public more control over what impacts them? It simply does not fit into his vision for the future of Britain, and raises questions about why he has undertaken this volte-face.

This contradiction has not gone entirely unnoticed. Independent MP Adnan Hussain, who quit as a Labour Party member in 2020 following Keir Starmer’s leadership election success, said today that he was “struggling to square Manchesterism with a potential return to the EU”, as this takes power away from the people. Burnham’s entire brand rests on his perception of authenticity. He persuaded voters and the Labour Party that he was a different kind of politician and would not change his mind or let them down. This clear reversal in what he appears to believe breaks that promise.

The Prime Minister has been vocal about ensuring that certain things will be “off the table” under his premiership, such as a referendum on a united Ireland. He must not cave to the Europhile pressure groups that have seemingly convinced him to reopen the prospect of rejoining the EU, and should instead restate his earlier beliefs — that when the people voted for sovereignty to be based at home rather than Brussels, they were right, and that such a vote should be upheld.