Burnham Criticized for Stance on European Union Rejoining

Commentator Stephen Glover has sharply criticized Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, for his recent remarks regarding the United Kingdom's potential return to the European Union. Glover contends that Burnham's position, which suggests a willingness to discuss rejoining the bloc, is politically unwise and based on flawed economic assumptions.

Burnham has indicated that a closer relationship with the EU, potentially including rejoining, is a conversation that must be had if the UK is serious about promoting growth, controlling immigration, and upholding security. He also suggested on "The Rest Is Politics" podcast that Russian interference may have influenced the 2016 Brexit referendum result, a claim he later retracted in Parliament, attributing Russian interference attempts to the 2019 general election.

Glover argues that Burnham's stance risks reopening divisive Brexit debates and could alienate voters. He disputes Burnham's economic arguments, stating that Britain's growth has outpaced that of the EU's three largest economies since the Brexit referendum, and the International Monetary Fund forecasts continued outperformance. Glover also dismisses the idea that EU membership would aid in controlling immigration, asserting that membership would necessitate accepting the free movement of people.

The commentary suggests that Burnham's focus on rejoining the EU is a step backward, looking to the past rather than forward, and that his position contradicts his previous statements to his constituents. Glover views Burnham's perceived desire to rejoin the EU as a "childlike and baffling devotion" to a "flagging" bloc, particularly in light of potential shifts in European political landscapes, such as the rise of hard-Right governments in major EU countries.

Glover's analysis posits that Burnham's approach could alienate millions of voters who believe the 2016 referendum result should be respected and could create further national division. He questions the wisdom of reopening such a contentious issue, suggesting it could lead to "very dark waters" for the UK and for Burnham's political future. The commentary also raises concerns about the precedent it might set for other constitutional votes, such as Scottish independence referendums.

Glover concludes that Burnham, rather than being a political savior, is an "inept" figure whose stance on the EU is politically damaging and based on "delusion."