Andy Burnham has said it is time for an “honest discussion” about the UK re-adopting freedom of movement with the European Union, signalling a potential shift in Labour’s thinking on the relationship with Brussels.
Why migration data is central to the argument
The prime minister told The Sunday Times that leaving freedom of movement had brought real costs, notably a reduction in access to European systems that support border control and asylum management. He specifically pointed to the loss of participation in Eurodac, the EU biometric database used to match asylum applications and support cross-border cooperation on migration.
“Consider what we’ve lost, which was the ability to be part of Eurodac and all the data collaboration around migration,”
Major General Duncan Capps, the UK’s border security commander, told MPs that the UK would welcome being part of Eurodac "however we can make that work", underlining official concern about gaps in information-sharing since Brexit.
Options under consideration
Mr Burnham said Labour should weigh a range of possible closer relationships with the EU. Those options include returning to full EU membership or joining the single market — both of which, under current EU rules, would entail accepting freedom of movement of people.
- Full EU membership: would restore existing membership rights and obligations, including free movement.
- Single market participation: could entail regulatory alignment and freedom of movement, depending on the terms agreed.
- Targeted cooperation: arrangements focused on specific operational needs, such as data-sharing on migration without full freedom of movement.
The Independent has previously reported that ministers believe the question of rejoining the EU is now more about how it is framed in a manifesto than whether it will be included. Mr Burnham also told The Sunday Times that a referendum on EU membership could be included in Labour’s next manifesto — a possibility he described as "possible" rather than inevitable.
Political implications and practical hurdles
Reopening the debate about freedom of movement will pose immediate political and practical challenges. Domestically, migration remains a sensitive issue for many voters and a key battleground for parties of the right. Labour will have to balance concerns about border control and public sentiment with the operational benefits the prime minister highlights.
On the practical side, any effort to regain access to Eurodac or similar EU systems would require negotiation with Brussels. The EU’s former chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, has said that the UK would be welcome to return to the bloc, but only on terms set by the EU — a reminder that technical cooperation is inseparable from wider political arrangements.
| Issue | Implication |
|---|---|
| Eurodac access | Improved asylum matching and migration intelligence but requires EU agreement |
| Freedom of movement | Potential economic and labour-market impacts; politically contentious |
| Referendum on membership | Major constitutional and electoral gamble if pursued |
Officials and ministers will need to map the trade-offs clearly: the operational benefit of enhanced data-sharing and collaboration versus the political cost of endorsing greater movement rights for EU nationals. That calculation will determine whether Labour’s overtures remain a policy exploration or become concrete manifesto commitments.
What to watch next
Key developments to monitor include any government moves to open formal talks with the EU about data-sharing arrangements, internal Labour discussions about the manifesto, and responses from opposition parties. How the public reacts to the framing of trade-offs between border control and practical migration cooperation will shape whether this becomes a defining issue ahead of the next election.
For now, the prime minister has put the question squarely on the agenda, insisting on a "very factual, quite evidence-based debate" about the UK’s future relationship with the EU. The next stage will be whether facts and evidence translate into politically deliverable proposals.
