🚨 This is huge. Andy Burnham is now openly saying that EU free movement would not be a red line. Free movement was one of the central reasons Britain ruled out the Single Market after Brexit. If that red line goes, the door to much deeper economic reintegration opens with it. Burnham hasn’t committed to restoring free movement yet. But he is now publicly questioning one of the fundamental assumptions on which hard Brexit was built. And his argument is devastatingly simple: Pre-Brexit European migration was often circular - people came, worked, and went home. Post-Brexit Britain ended free movement and then experienced much higher net migration. Brexit did not solve immigration. It changed its nature, while damaging trade at the same time. Thank god we’ve moved beyond “make Brexit work” to reconnecting Britain.

🚨 Goldman Sachs has put numbers on Brexit choices. Current Brexit deal: +0.3% GDP Customs union: +1% Single Market: up to +5% Full EU membership: up to +6% And Goldman estimates the UK economy is already around 6% smaller than its counterfactual path since the 2016 referendum. Non wonder the debate is changing. The further Britain moves back towards Europe, the larger the potential economic dividend. Brexit was sold as a growth strategy, but now 10 years later, the growth strategy is undoing Brexit asap.

This video is extraordinary to watch again now. In 2019, @JMPSimor explained to @mrjamesob the constitutional paradox at the heart of Brexit: the referendum was advisory, so the courts would not quash the result, even though the legal challenge argued it had been tainted by proven unlawful campaigning. She told @LBC that, had the referendum been legally binding, the result could have been set aside. So Britain was left with this absurd position: The referendum was not legally binding enough to be invalidated but it was treated politically as binding enough to take us out of the European Union. And that was not the only unresolved constitutional issue. My own 2018 judicial review, Webster v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, challenged the missing Article 50(1) decision, the lawful decision to withdraw that had to precede notification. Parliament expressly authorised notification under Article 50(2), but never expressly enacted that antecedent decision. The courts refused permission in both cases. Now we are being told by the Prime Minister @andyburnham that Russia interfered in the 2016 referendum. This changes the context again. It does not automatically undo Brexit. But it makes one thing impossible to avoid: Britain needs a statutory public inquiry into the referendum, the intelligence, and the Article 50 decision-making process. We need documents. Witnesses under oath. The Cabinet record. The intelligence assessments. The legal trail. Because ten years on, the question is no longer simply whether Brexit was right or wrong. It is whether the British public and Parliament were ever told the full truth about how it happened.