Burnham Criticized for Pro-EU Stance and Allegations of Russian Interference

Columnist Stephen Glover has sharply criticized Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, for his recent statements suggesting a desire for closer ties with the European Union and for raising the possibility of Russian interference in the Brexit referendum. Glover contends that Burnham's stance risks reopening divisive political wounds and is based on flawed economic arguments.

In a recent commentary, Glover expressed skepticism about the notion that Burnham is a political savior, instead labeling him a "prize dud" whose actions could inadvertently elevate current Labour leader Keir Starmer. Burnham, who previously served as a national politician before becoming mayor, is accused by Glover of being out of touch with political realities and of possessing a "childlike and baffling devotion to the flagging EU."

Glover highlighted Burnham's comments made on "The Rest Is Politics" podcast, co-hosted by Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, where Burnham suggested Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit vote. This claim was later retracted by Burnham in the House of Commons, where he stated that "Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election." Glover argues that multiple authorities, including former heads of MI5, have found no evidence of Russian influence on the Brexit result, deeming Burnham's initial assertion a "shameless attempt to discredit Brexit."

The columnist also took issue with Burnham's apparent willingness to consider rejoining the EU, a position that Glover claims contradicts previous statements made to his constituents. Glover describes this as a "downright fib" and a "brazen whopper," questioning Burnham's political integrity.

Economically, Glover disputes Burnham's assertion that closer EU ties would boost growth and control immigration. He points to recent IMF forecasts indicating that the UK economy is expected to outperform the EU's three largest economies – France, Germany, and Italy – in the current year. Glover also dismisses the idea that EU membership would help control immigration, arguing that it would necessitate the free movement of people and that the UK already has legal control over its borders.

Glover suggests that Burnham's enthusiasm for the EU is particularly perplexing given the potential rise of hard-right governments in key EU member states. He views Burnham's focus on the past, specifically the economically challenging 1970s, as a sign of delusion.

While acknowledging that Burnham might attract some pro-EU voters, Glover warns that such a stance would alienate millions of voters who believe the Brexit referendum result should be respected. He asserts that reopening the Brexit debate would be divisive and acrimonious, potentially undermining democratic decisions. Glover also questions the implications for Scottish independence, suggesting that if a binding referendum result can be revisited, it could weaken the case for respecting the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

Ultimately, Glover concludes that Burnham is embarking on a path that could lead to "national calamity and his own demise," characterizing him as an "untrustworthy and unexpectedly inept" politician.