It’s been called the most divisive moment in modern British political history, by more people than just me.
It was the moment the British people exercised their democratic right to extrapolate the UK from the European Union. It was decided by a free and fair public vote - the EU Referendum - in June 2016.
It was not what the political Establishment of the nation wanted nor expected. Consequently, it provoked the most bare-assed display of petulant sabotage imaginable. It took a dreary carnival of 3 Prime Ministers and 4 years of Parliamentary prattle before the UK government finally acknowledged the wishes of its people and the UK formally left the EU in January 2020.
The government response to the Brexit result was tedious, monotonous, spiteful, shameful and the most blatant example of Establishment contempt for the British people this side of King John and the Magna Carta.
Three months into his premiership, Andy Burnham has revealed he wants to open the whole thing up again.
Sacre fucking bleu.
The Short Truth
On 30 September 2026, in his first speech to a Labour Party conference as PM, Andy Burnham raised the option of the UK rejoining the EU via a second referendum. He was characteristically vague and non-committal, but with no obligation to even mention Brexit, he chose to go there.
Four months earlier, electioneering in the Makerfield by-election (Labour’s ruse to shoe-horn the previously rejected Burnham back into the Commons, back-door politics at its very finest) when asked about Brexit, he said:
“My view is that Brexit has been damaging, but I also believe the last thing we should do right now is re-run those arguments. 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.”
Fast forward four months, by-election duly won and now firmly ensconced in Number 10 (North), Burnham could be found happily U-turning like a Keir Starmer tribute act.
‘Fooled you!’ he might well have said. ‘Now what else can I foist on you mugs in the remaining three years of my unelected term of office?’
The Structural Truth
Here it is, in their own words.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced the EU Referendum in January 2013 with the following:
“It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics... When the people have spoken, their decision will be final.”
He reiterated that commitment in October 2015, stating:
“If the British people vote to leave, then we will leave. There is no second chance, no second renegotiation, no second referendum.”
Representing the Labour side, Keir Starmer added in 2017:
"the notion that the referendum was merely a consultation exercise to inform Parliament holds no water. [It is our] duty to respect the outcome."
Even to this day - some ten years after the Referendum result was cast - politicians on both sides of the House, along with mainstream media commentators, economists and generally anyone with a gripe about it, continue to revive Brexit whenever an excuse is needed for anything going wrong.
It has become a political Get Out of Jail card.
Superseded at various times as the excuse-of-choice by Covid, the Ukraine war, the Iran war and global warming, the second coming of Andy Burnham has quickly bumped Brexit back into its exalted position as the Number One Cause of All Ills.
The Personal Truth
It is, of course, perfectly possible that a second EU referendum would reverse the earlier decision. For as long as the UK has had General Elections, we have had mid-term polls which hinted at the likelihood of an opposite result.
But a mid-term reversal of mood is not a valid reason to change a government.
Political process exists to cement consistency and surety into our system. It is not whimsical, it is stable. We have a parliamentary process which honours at its core the democratic wishes of the electorate.
Brexit was an anomaly. The one that got away. Cameron’s Folly.
It is rare that a democratic decision is made by the public which does not resemble the wishes of the Establishment. Why? Because the system is set up in such a way that significant change must be passed by both the Houses of Commons and Lords before the King’s Royal Approval.
Election manifestos claim to set mandates, but the ultimate direction taken by the country remains at the whim of government. A party can pretty much promise whatever they like. Once elected, sit tight people and hope for the best.
Vote Boris Johnson, get Liz Truss. With added Rishi Sunak.
Vote Keir Starmer, get Andy Burnham.
We vote for the party, not the leader. We get that.
Switching drivers midway through the journey is sometimes necessary. But reversing the government’s commitment to a monumental decision 7 years in the making, and secured with the approval of 52% of the participants (in the UK’s highest turnout for a national vote ever)?
That takes political hubris to a whole new level.
The Long Truth
There are circumstances in which a political U-turn is not only acceptable but necessary. If the economic, security or political circumstances have fundamentally changed, a government should be willing to change course. That could, in principle, include holding a second referendum on a major constitutional decision such as Brexit. Ten years is a long time in politics, and there is nothing inherently undemocratic about asking people to reconsider a decision if the circumstances have genuinely changed.
But that argument has to work both ways.
A second referendum should not become a mechanism for an Establishment that disliked the first result to keep asking the same question until it gets the answer it wanted. The case for another referendum has to be based on a demonstrable change in circumstances, not simply dissatisfaction with the original verdict.
That is particularly important in 2026. The argument that Brexit has been difficult, disappointing or economically damaging is not, by itself, proof that the 2016 decision has somehow expired.
The Long Solution
Instead of flirting with the Remainers and dangling the possibility of a second EU referendum, Burnham needs to explain what circumstances have changed to justify a new vote.
He won’t - he can’t - because such circumstances haven’t changed.
The Remainers continue to hate Brexit for all the same reasons they argued against it in the first place.
The Establishment told us to vote remain and assumed we would do just that, thus maintaining an endorsement of the status quo in which they were doing very nicely thank you.
The Brexiteers voted to leave because they wanted greater control of their borders, to curb immigration, and to achieve greater sovereignty. Ask them again and they would undoubtedly show disappointment that Brexit did not deliver those hoped-for aims. But that does not mean they no longer yearn for the same.
Immigration did not become a bigger problem in the last ten years because of Brexit. It did so because of the incompetence of the Home Office and the impotence of Government policy, which would have happened Brexit or not. 77% of immigrants into the UK in 2025 were non-EU. In other words, nothing to do with Brexit. It’s a different problem.
Andy Burnham claims to be offering “politics done differently, problem-solving, over point-scoring.”
Brexit was the most divisive, point-scoring exercise in recent political history. First big speech and that’s what he’s talking about. Sounds like the same old politics to me, mate.
The last thing we need is ‘Brexit 2: The Remainer’s Revenge.’
What we absolutely do need is a strong leader who honours democracy, respects process, and expresses strong, clear ideas for future foreign policy. Saying ‘we might do this, we might do that’ is - quite frankly - pathetic.
Do you agree? Let me know what you think.