Healey risks undermining Burnham's bid to ease Brexit splits as he insists freedom of movement is 'not on the agenda'

Published: 05:28 EDT, 29 October 2026 | Updated: 05:28 EDT, 29 October 2026 Andy Burnham's bid to get a grip on Brexit tensions in Cabinet was dealt a blow by his Chancellor today.The PM sent a letter to ministers yesterday urging them not to take fixed positions on future ties with the EU.The move came after he triggered a storm by raising the prospect the UK could rejoin the bloc after the next election, and even restore the previous open borders rules.However, in an interview after his Budget, John Healey risked undermining the call for 'discipline' on the issue. Asked on GB News whether free movement was 'on the agenda now', Mr Healey - who represents a constituency that voted heavily for Brexit - said: 'No. Freedom of movement is not on the agenda, and certainly for this Parliament it's ruled out.'Despite the seemingly trenchant statement, the Chancellor added: 'But inevitably it's part of a bigger discussion about how we get a better Brexit deal and Britain does better after the ten years of Brexit deal that's failing the country. 'Now, the Prime Minister wants that bigger conversation. My first focus is this European summit that's coming up next month, and I want to make sure that we can negotiate some better terms and lower costs for our business. John Healey insisted free movement is 'not on the agenda', after Andy Burnham urged ministers not to take fixed positions 'It'll create jobs, improve trade and if we can help bring down costs for consumers here, that's a good thing.Pressed whether that meant he would be 'in favour of entering the EU on a freedom of movement basis' if it helped the economy, Mr Healey said: 'No, I'm in favour of accepting that we've got a Brexit decision. 'And I'm in favour of the job we need to do now, which is to make the best of the terms we've got. 'And my job as Chancellor is to make sure that we can reinforce the economy. We can create the support for those people who are ready to start and rapidly grow firms here.' .In the letter to the Cabinet published yesterday, Mr Burnham said any 'fundamental change' to post-Brexit arrangements would be 'for the public to decide' and left to the next Parliament.The PM's call at the weekend for an 'honest discussion' about a return to freedom of movement has prompted questions about the parameters around his vision for a deepening relationship with Brussels.Confusion intensified after he was pressed on Monday about how any change in Labour's manifesto red lines - ruling out rejoining the customs union and single market - would be put to voters.Speaking to ITV, Mr Burnham said there would be no shift within this Parliament and signalled that he could fight the next general election on a promise to take the UK back into the bloc.In another interview, he said 'no' when asked whether he would allow the UK to reinstate EU freedom of movement without a referendum, forcing Downing Street to later clarify that he was 'not leaning either way' on how to move forward.Writing to the Cabinet, Mr Burnham said: 'I am clear in my conviction that the Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservative government was not good enough for Britain. It has led to a decade of low growth, burdened businesses with more red tape and weakened our ability to control immigration.'It is a harder Brexit than was promised at the EU referendum.'Mr Burnham told ministers there was an 'agreed mandate' for the summit to which Cabinet collective responsibility applies and warned them against publicly advocating for any specific outcome in the period that follows.'In the period beyond the summit, Government policy will be to explore options for the long-term relationship with the EU for consideration in the next Parliament,' he said.'At the end of this process, we will set out to the country the respective merits and drawbacks of the various options.'It is important that we remain aligned and disciplined as a Government in our messaging throughout this period.'It will not be appropriate for ministers individually to advocate for specific options or opine on the likely outcome of the process.'