❌

Normal view

The Guardian view on the far right’s plans for Brussels: doing the work of Xi, Putin and Trump | Editorial

27 October 2026 at 18:25

If ever enacted, proposals by Marine Le Pen and the AfD leader, Alice Weidel, to hollow out EU institutions would be a continental act of self-harm

Following the Brexit referendum in 2016, Marine Le Pen was in a predictably celebratory mood. Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, she told one interviewer, was the first breach in the “Brussels Wall”. Ms Le Pen’s Front National party was at that point committed to taking France down the same path, given the chance. But as the UK’s self-inflicted economic wounds became a cautionary tale for the rest of Europe, the notion of Frexit was put on ice.

Instead, Ms Le Pen now hopes to lead far-right allies in hollowing out the EU from within. This month, both she and the leader of Alternative für Deutschland, Alice Weidel, outlined their visions of a “Europe of nations” in which EU institutions would be stripped of both cash and power. Ms Weidel’s “new deal for Europe” would abolish elections to the European parliament, and seek German opt-outs in areas such as migration, defence and common borrowing. Ms Le Pen’s party, now called National Rally, proposes slashing French contributions to the EU budget by 60% over a five-year presidential term, and ending the role of Brussels in proposing common policies for the 27 member states.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Christophe Petit-Tesson/EPA

© Photograph: Christophe Petit-Tesson/EPA

© Photograph: Christophe Petit-Tesson/EPA

Labour faces accusations of breaking manifesto pledge over minimum wage for young people – as it happened

27 October 2026 at 16:42

Greens say Labour has ‘no respect for young people’ amid reports chancellor will pause equalisation of minimum wage for under-21s with that paid to older workers

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has not contested reports saying that, in the budget tomorrow, John Healey, the chancellor, will pause the process of equalising the lower national minimum wage paid to people under the age of 21 with the more generous national living wage that applies to older workers.

In an interview on the BBC this morning, Reynolds was asked to respond to a story suggesting the equalisation process has been put on hold because of concerns about youth unemployment.

John Healey will announce plans to increase the minimum wage by nearly 4% but slow the rise for young people after warnings that they are being priced out of jobs.

The Times has been told that the national living wage, which applies to those aged 21 and over, is expected to rise from £12.71 to around £13.20 – an increase of 3.9%.

The manifesto pledge on equalisation still applies, but it was always clear it would happen over time and we would take into account, as the minimum wage uprating each year always does, the relative strength of the labour market and other pressures …

Of course, you want not just good wages, but good work. And the way this has always been done – it is a balance of making sure the pressures on the labour market are taken into account. That is the approach you will see confirmed [in the budget].

Anyone doing a day’s work, needs to be paid the same rate for the same job. A young person’s rent and food bill is no less because they are young, so they need to receive the same wage.

Healey and Burnham are now breaking a manifesto pledge to young people that even Starmer managed to keep. Labour have no respect for young people, who appear to just be there for cheap labour for the wealthy and their corporate donors.

[It] wouldn’t be my cup of tea, but I wouldn’t ban anybody from doing so … I don’t want us to get into a world of cancel culture.

I’m not going to have run a party where we say you can’t talk about that person or that person. We have to be sensible about vetting. And we are.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: WPA/Getty Images

© Photograph: WPA/Getty Images

© Photograph: WPA/Getty Images

UK officials discussing options including free movement with EU ahead of summit

Business secretary says focus for November summit will be trade and youth mobility, but talks will also include ‘future options for relationship’

British officials have begun discussions with the EU about a long-term relationship that could include a return to free movement, the business secretary has said while promising the British people “are the boss” when it comes to what the UK will accept.

Jonathan Reynolds said the focus for British negotiations was the EU summit in November to seal an agreement to ease some trading restrictions and a youth mobility deal. But he said the prime minister, Andy Burnham, had made it clear he wanted to see a long-term and stable relationship with the bloc.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

© Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

© Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

UK officials discussing options including free movement with EU ahead of summit

Business secretary says focus for November summit will be trade and youth mobility, but talks will also include ‘future options for relationship’

British officials have begun discussions with the EU about a long-term relationship that could include a return to free movement, the business secretary has said while promising the British people “are the boss” when it comes to what the UK will accept.

Jonathan Reynolds said the focus for British negotiations was the EU summit in November to seal an agreement to ease some trading restrictions and a youth mobility deal. But he said the prime minister, Andy Burnham, had made it clear he wanted to see a long-term and stable relationship with the bloc.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

© Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

© Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

No 10 clarifies Andy Burnham’s stance on freedom of movement

Clarification comes after PM fuelled speculation about EU-UK relationship in series of interviews at weekend

Downing Street has been forced to clarify Andy Burnham’s stance on whether the UK would return to having freedom of movement with the EU after the prime minister said an “honest discussion” was needed on the issue.

Burnham fuelled speculation about a return to freedom of movement in an interview at the weekend, prompting questions about how close the UK could become to Brussels.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Pool AFP/AP

© Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Pool AFP/AP

© Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Pool AFP/AP

What makes Andy Burnham think we can rejoin the EU? | Politics Weekly

Andy Burnham claims revising Brexit would ‘bring people together’. The PM wants to look again at issues like free movement, but rules out joining the euro or Schengen. Would rejoining the EU bring up old wounds and risk further division?

Plus, as chancellor John Healey gears up for a tricky budget, what should you be looking out for?

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Pool AFP/AP

© Photograph: Pool AFP/AP

© Photograph: Pool AFP/AP

A referendum is not needed for the UK to reach a Bre-entry deal with Europe | Letters

26 October 2026 at 17:39

Readers respond to Polly Toynbee’s article on the possibility of rejoining the EU

With all due respect to Polly Toynbee, why do we assume that we would need another referendum to return to Europe (Shall we have another EU referendum? Maybe – but not yet, 19 October)? The last one didn’t work out too well. Asking the electorate to vote a simple yes or no on such a complex and multifaceted deal was never going to be the right approach; nor will it be to go back in.

Call it what you will – Brejoin, Bre-entry, Brehabilitation – it shouldn’t be an all-or-nothing deal. The one thing that Brexit has given us is the opportunity to cherrypick the elements of a relationship that are of mutual benefit to both parties. How about approaching it on a piecemeal basis, processing it through normal parliamentary procedure? No buses required.
Gary Jones
Wimbledon, London

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/AFP/Getty Images

© Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/AFP/Getty Images

© Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/AFP/Getty Images

What makes Andy Burnham think Britain can rejoin the EU? – podcast

Andy Burnham claims revising Brexit would ‘bring people together’. The PM wants to look again at issues such as free movement but rules out joining the euro or Schengen. Would rejoining the EU open old wounds and risk further division? Plus, as the chancellor, John Healey, gears up for a tricky budget, what should you be looking out for?

You can watch this episode of Politics Weekly on our YouTube channel here.

Read Jessica Elgot’s deep dive on how Andy Burnham and John Healey have been preparing for the budget here.

Any questions on Andy Burnham’s comments about rejoining the EU please send to politicsweeklyuk@theguardian.com.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters

© Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters

© Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters

Reino Unido admite discutir o regresso da livre circulação com a União Europeia

By: ZAP
26 October 2026 at 10:30
A um mês de uma cimeira com Bruxelas, Andy Burnham admite reabrir a livre circulação de pessoas com a UE. O regresso à União Europeia exigiria um novo referendo, mas “isso não seria necessariamente obrigatório para regressar ao mercado único”. O primeiro-ministro britânico, Andy Burnham, mostrou-se aberto a retomar a livre circulação de pessoas entre o Reino Unido e a União Europeia, numa altura em que os dois lados preparam a cimeira de líderes do próximo mês. Um regresso à livre circulação não seria uma linha vermelha nas negociações, sugeriu, uma vez que as tendências da imigração mudaram desde que

No 10 plays down UK joining EU single market after Burnham suggests referendum would be needed – as it happened

26 October 2026 at 17:22

The prime minister previously said that he wanted a debate on how Britain can establish a closer relationship

Speaking at his rough sleeping summit in Downing Street this morning, Andy Burnham expanded on the claim he made on Good Morning Britain about tackling rough sleeping being cheaper than ignoring the problem. (See 11.13am.)

He said:

We’ve also got to be conscious when we speak to the rest of the country, the taxpayers of this country, that actually to leave people sleeping rough has financial consequences. It doesn’t work for anybody and it doesn’t work for the public purse, because if you leave people in a position where they are in and out of A&E, and in and out of a hospital bed, that doesn’t make sense for anybody.

There is a rock-solid business case to do something to end homelessness, to put people on a path to recovery, so that they can contribute once again. And that should be the thinking that we take to this conversation.

Burnham is throwing another £432m at a problem he failed to solve in Greater Manchester. Under Labour, rough sleeping has hit record highs – yet their answer is always more taxpayers’ money and more empty promises.

[John] Healey must use his budget this week to cut taxes for working people, get the ballooning benefits bill under control, and stop pushing up energy prices.

John Healey is expected to confirm on Wednesday that the full state pension will rise by £489 to £13,036 – equivalent to 3.9%.

However, the rise will push about one million people on low incomes who rely on the state pension above the £12,570 personal allowance threshold, meaning they would be dragged into paying income tax.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: ITV

© Photograph: ITV

© Photograph: ITV

Brexit deal is not good enough for British public, says Andy Burnham

EU exit has damaged economy and failed to bring promised benefits, says PM, but he rules out big pre-election changes

Brexit has not “played out” like it was promised to the public, has weakened the economy and the current deal is not good enough, Andy Burnham has said, while ruling out any major changes in the current parliament.

The prime minister said Britain had ended up with a “harder Brexit than was proposed in the referendum campaign” and it had not helped to control the small boats crisis. Backing the home secretary’s tougher immigration rules, he said Brexit had weakened the UK’s ability to control its borders as it could no longer send people back to Europe.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: House of Commons/PA

© Photograph: House of Commons/PA

© Photograph: House of Commons/PA

Cabinet ministers back Burnham’s call for debate on return to free movement with EU

PM’s plea supported by Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband and business leaders, while some ‘red wall’ MPs voice concern

Andy Burnham’s call for the UK to consider a return to free movement with Europe has been backed by senior cabinet ministers but risked a rift with “red wall” Labour MPs, who say it could jeopardise Brexit-voting seats.

The prime minister made his plea for an “honest discussion” about freedom of movement in an interview with the Sunday Times, making clear that staying out of it would no longer be a red line in talks with the EU.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Toby Shepheard/Pool AFP/AP

© Photograph: Toby Shepheard/Pool AFP/AP

© Photograph: Toby Shepheard/Pool AFP/AP

Burnham Is Right to Reopen Britain’s European Debate

25 October 2026 at 07:59

 

Andy Burnham has opened a necessary conversation. By suggesting Britain should examine the possibility of restoring free movement with the European Union, the prime minister is challenging a damaging assumption: that respecting the Brexit referendum requires refusing to discuss whether different arrangements might now serve the country better.

His call for an “honest discussion” deserves support. Before making another consequential European choice, Britain needs evidence, scrutiny and political leadership willing to acknowledge uncomfortable trade-offs. Burnham’s willingness to consider closer relations creates space for precisely that debate. news.sky.com

The immediate opposition response was predictable. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp rejected any return to free movement, while Nigel Farage accused Burnham of betraying Brexit voters. Yet neither objection answers the central question: which relationship with Europe would best advance British prosperity, security and opportunity today?

The 2016 referendum authorised Britain’s departure from the EU. It did not remove future generations’ right to reconsider the terms of that relationship. Democratic decisions carry authority, but democracy also provides the means to change direction. Otherwise, elections would become ceremonies for administering choices made permanently elsewhere.

Burnham’s recognition that fundamental changes require a fresh electoral mandate is therefore essential. Labour’s 2024 manifesto ruled out restoring free movement, single market membership and a customs union. Any departure from those commitments must be explained clearly and put before voters. Opening a discussion is a legitimate first step.

The strongest feature of Burnham’s intervention is his insistence that migration deserves closer examination than familiar campaign slogans permit. He argues that the movement associated with EU membership often involved people arriving temporarily, working and subsequently returning home. That proposition merits testing against the evidence, including differences between sectors and communities.

It also restores a neglected part of the argument: free movement worked both ways. British citizens could build careers, study and establish lives across participating European countries. For younger Britons, especially, those opportunities should feature prominently in any assessment of what a future agreement could offer.

There were difficulties. Rapid population changes placed pressure on some communities, and governments too often failed to match economic change with housing, infrastructure and public services. A persuasive case for renewed mobility must acknowledge those experiences. Burnham will gain credibility by explaining how his approach would address them.

But acknowledging past failures should encourage better policy. It should not close the conversation. The relevant questions concern employment, wages, investment, public-service capacity and reciprocal rights. Each deserves serious analysis. Treating every proposal for mobility as surrendering the border substitutes a political warning label for an examination of the actual arrangements.

The economic argument deserves equally careful treatment. Closer participation in European markets could make some cross-border business easier and widen recruitment opportunities. The benefits would depend on the agreement negotiated. So would the obligations. Burnham should publish a transparent comparison of the available routes, with assumptions and uncertainties clearly identified.

His stated opposition to joining the euro or Schengen also helps define his starting position. However, Britain cannot determine the conditions of a future European settlement unilaterally. Any credible initiative must establish what Brussels would accept, what obligations Britain would undertake and which outcomes are realistically negotiable. thetimes.com

That is why the forthcoming Brussels summit matters. It offers an opportunity to explore possibilities and establish whether ambition can become a workable programme. Burnham should approach those discussions with confidence, while resisting promises that depend on concessions European partners have yet to offer.

His opponents are entitled to challenge every proposal. Indeed, a rigorous debate would strengthen any eventual settlement. But accusations of betrayal cannot become a permanent veto over discussing the national interest. Voters deserve competing arguments supported by evidence and a clear explanation of the choices available.

Burnham’s initiative is welcome because it treats the public as capable of reconsideration. Britain can respect the decision taken in 2016 while asking what should happen next. A prime minister prepared to lead that conversation, acknowledge its difficulties and seek democratic consent is offering something valuable: the possibility of moving forward.

Britain Confirms Russian Interference in Brexit Referendum After Ten Years

Andy Burnham says he wants ‘honest discussion’ about freedom of movement with EU

25 October 2026 at 00:07

Prime minister is considering different options for new relationship with Brussels ahead of summit in November

Andy Burnham says he wants an “honest discussion” with the British public about the possibility of a return to free movement between the UK and the EU as part of his plans for a new relationship with the bloc.

The prime minister has been open about his desire to revisit the relationship between Britain and Brussels. He has said a new deal could mean the UK goes “all the way” and rejoins the EU.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Temilade Adelaja/Reuters

© Photograph: Temilade Adelaja/Reuters

© Photograph: Temilade Adelaja/Reuters

Rejoin the EU, Says Think Tank Funded by Soros and the European Climate Foundation

24 October 2026 at 07:00

This week a self-described "influential think tank", the IPPR, advised that the "UK must seek EU membership”. Charlotte Gill was not surprised to find it was funded by George Soros and the European Climate Foundation.

The post Rejoin the EU, Says Think Tank Funded by Soros and the European Climate Foundation appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Briton facing forced separation from baby son after Sweden orders his deportation

Exclusive: Photographer Simon Montgomery told ‘state’s interest in regulated immigration’ outweighs his family concerns

A British photographer is facing deportation from Sweden and forced separation from his 16-month-old son after authorities ruled in favour of the country’s immigration interests.

Simon Montgomery’s application to remain after the birth of his son last year was rejected on several grounds by Sweden’s migration agency, a decision that was then upheld by the migration court.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Supplied by Simon

© Photograph: Supplied by Simon

© Photograph: Supplied by Simon

EU leaders to press Burnham to pay more towards Ukraine’s defence

Officials will call on UK to ‘step up’ financial support at Brussels summit – with post-Brexit issues also on agenda

EU leaders will press Andy Burnham at a summit in Brussels to contribute more to Ukraine’s defence effort in 2027.

EU officials argue that the UK, Canada and Japan should do more to support Ukraine, but entreaties to these G7 countries for extra financial aid at recent international meetings have not been answered, Brussels says.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

Youth mobility scheme may be delayed to ensure success of UK-EU summit

Visa quotas, university fees and NHS surcharges remain sticking points ahead of post-Brexit negotiations next month

A deadline for a youth mobility scheme between the EU and the UK could be deferred by six months in a bid to ensure Andy Burnham has a successful “reset” summit on 20 November, diplomats have said.

EU ambassadors in Brussels on Wednesday heard that the UK was still insisting on international tuition fees, quotas and an NHS surcharge for EU students. This has fuelled fears the summit could fail, just as the prime minister is promising to unveil a new vision for Britain’s long-term relationship with the EU.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA

© Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA

© Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA

The truth about Burnham’s Russia meddling claims in Brexit vote

By: A A
22 October 2026 at 12:10

Burnham’s Russia interference claim is a hoax to justify re-joining the EU and war prep.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Still the preposterous “Russians are coming” narrative is being pushed in the UK. And yet this time it’s not from top military figures or those in the intelligence community, but the PM himself – albeit in a subtle way, days ahead of a first-ever UK-EU Summit. Andy Burnham, a man who you might think would be more at home on a used car lot than in the political arena, dropped a bombshell recently when he announced that he was told by the security services that Russia had in fact “sought to interfere” with the UK’s Brexit referendum of 2016. Remarkably, 10 years after the event, Britain’s own secret service have come up with such a conclusion when almost every single year previous to this announcement they have said the opposite. So what is really going on?

Burnham has a major challenge ahead. How does he stay in power and succeed at the polls against the Conservatives, who are growing, and Reform UK, which still holds an impressive support base, when he doesn’t actually have any policies himself to fix anything in broken Britain? His answer is to look backwards at the past and try to win voters’ hearts and minds by fixing it. Even if it doesn’t need fixing. One of the policy areas is Britain’s relationship with the EU and the possibility of another referendum to rejoin it, despite his promises to the contrary – which is, in part, where the statement about Russia is coming from. There is actually no evidence at all to suggest Russia interfered with the Brexit referendum, and even opposition MPs have asked him in recent days to provide it, to back up his sensational claims. Burnham is building a case to move the UK back to Brussels, and the lie about Russian interference is one component of that case. But it’s an important one.

On another parallel, he is aligned completely with the EU idea that all European member states should be spending much more on defence in preparation for a war with Russia. Like Merz and Macron, though, he too doesn’t mention to the British public that the impending war with Russia is one which is going to be manufactured entirely by him, Merz and Macron as part of a political renaissance to keep them and their support bases in power. The rationale isn’t very complicated. Successive governments have done terrible jobs on the economy, energy and investing in longer-term projects to create jobs. They have sold off everything that was worth selling and are now running their countries on an impossibly high borrowing model which even the most stupid know cannot continue. They also cannot afford the fallout of NATO collapsing and a scandal of Western officials exposed at skimming off billions from the Ukraine war racket when it ends – and so the Ukraine war must go on at all costs. They have, more or less, boxed themselves into the ‘Russia war’ plan.

Rather than wait for the economic meltdown and tyranny to take over most towns in the UK, in particular in the north, the elites like Burnham believe that a war – or as close to the imminent threat of one – will serve its purpose from distracting the angry crowds away from burning and looting and focus them on supposedly fighting for their own country. It’s a scam. And sadly, it’s one which seems to be working, as it is supported by the billionaires who own the media in the UK, so, broadly speaking, the working classes have swallowed the ‘war with Russia’ ruse.

Furthermore, the industrial military complex also gets a massively needed shot in the arm of public money which under normal circumstances would not be possible. Most of this is U.S. money, of course, but the UK has also a defence industry of its own which is in need of new cash. And as we have seen with Boris Johnson, it also works on the same ‘gratuity’ basis for paying off politicians huge amounts for helping with their orders. Part of the sweetener of getting the country to prepare for war with Russia is that the huge contracts that have to be given to the defence business also come with the same brown envelopes for those who presided over them. It beggars belief how our politicians in the UK have resisted so far not to bang on the Russian war drum more when the rewards are considerable.

There is nothing remarkable about our leaders any more – only that they are no longer leaders. Burnham has the on-screen charisma of a provincial school teacher whom you meet in a train compartment and instantly regret engaging in conversation, as he really has nothing to say. No new ideas. No new plans. He is stuck in the past and has no choice but to remain there while apparently fixing Britain. His problem is that the country and the world have changed and are rapidly changing. The EU that Britain left is not the same EU today. The economies of France and Germany are in tatters due to years of poor governance, atrocious foreign policy stunts like Ukraine, and too many poor domestic policy decisions that have backfired, like energy. The EU itself under von der Leyen has turned into an Orwellian superstate, corrupt to the core, which also has exactly the same scam to save their own political necks: war with Russia. The U.S. is in rapid decline, BRICS nations are emerging as the new global economic powerhouse to balance the old world order. All Burnham has is old ideas which belong in the past. And lies. Even his own ministers have admitted that there is no truth whatsoever in the Russian interference hoax, and yet he is peddling it, like an old comedian recycling someone else’s old jokes. The truth is that while Burnham is under some pressure from, in particular, Germany’s leader Merz, to push this narrative that the far right is funded by Russia (which of course works for Burnham in the UK as well), in reality the only ‘foreign interference’ is the dark power of the Israeli lobby and its cash in Westminster. And why doesn’t even one single UK journalist or commentator point out the patent hypocrisy of this election meddling accusation which all superpowers indulge in anyway? In 2014, the Americans boasted that they had spent $5bn USD on social media influencing in Ukraine to install a Westernised leader in power. Was that not “meddling”?

‘Project Fear’ didn’t work, so why do we keep demonising far-right and left voters?

21 October 2026 at 19:00

Ten years ago, ‘Project Fear’ was at the heart of the ‘Remain’ campaign’s inept efforts to persuade Britons not to vote to leave the EU. 

Voting for Brexit, according to David Cameron’s government Doomsday forecasts, would cost every household £4,300 (€5,000) per year from 2030, lead to an immediate recession and mean lower house prices. 

It was a huge mistake. That all the pro-EU camp could say about being members of the club was that it would be very expensive to leave was a jarring admission of failure. And the promised economic apocalypse of instant recession and house price warnings didn’t happen. Most people simply didn’t believe the figures or that the politicians behind them were being honest about them. The result, as we know, is that more than 17m Brits gave the ‘establishment’ – or what they perceived it to be – a big kick up the arse. 

Fast forward to 2026 and newly-minted UK prime minister Andy Burnham has put all options for UK-EU relations – including rejoining – back on the table. 

The UK Treasury, which drew up the prophecies of doom, is now expected to publish a study analysing the potential economic benefits of Britain moving closer to the EU ahead of November’s EU-UK summit.

Personally, I think Brexit and the piecemeal trade and cooperation agreement that governs EU-UK trade has resulted in a small but significant economic hit.

The hope is that the treasury won’t promise milk, honey and gold-paved streets if the UK rejoins the EU or its single market.  

If over-promising increases the speed at which voters get disappointed with governments, the Brexit vote is proof that trying to frighten people is the fastest way to lose an election.  

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

❌