Badenoch's refusal to reassess Brexit is ideological denial, while the PM's fact-based national conversation is the right response to changed circumstances
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/editorial. "The Guardian view on a changing Brexit debate: Kemi Badenoch is trapped in denial | Editorial | The Guardian." October 29, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The Guardian says the world has changed since Brexit, with the war in Ukraine and an unreliable Trump-led US, so it makes sense to rethink Britain's relationship with Europe. Kemi Badenoch refuses to do so out of ideology and fear of the facts, while the prime minister is right to start an open conversation, even if he's vague about what he wants.
Conclusion
The Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch is in denial by refusing any reappraisal of Britain's relationship with the EU, and the prime minister is right to open a national, fact-based conversation about closer ties, including rejoining. For him to share the Tories' denial would be a dereliction of duty.
Premises
- Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine has turned European solidarity into an urgent matter of defence partnership, and Trump's scorn for European democracies and indulgence of Putin has undermined confidence in the US 'special relationship', so a reappraisal of Brexit is warranted.
- Brexit has made Britain poorer and diminished its influence on the world stage.
- Opinion polls show majority public support for a closer EU relationship, so the public already recognises these facts.
- The Tory and Reform position contains no audit of Britain's foreign and economic interests and is driven by ideology and fear of confronting the facts.
- Badenoch's stance is disingenuous: she accuses Labour of stirring division while committing to leave the ECHR, which would reopen divisive Brexit-era arguments because the ECHR is codified in the Good Friday Agreement.
- Distinguishing between relitigating the 2016 arguments and engaging with present realities is legitimate, so Burnham's earlier remarks are consistent with his current position, and his ambiguity has loosened the taboo around closer integration, which a healthier fact-based debate requires.
Assumptions
- Brexit's economic and geopolitical costs are established fact rather than contested judgement.
- Majority poll support for a 'closer relationship' translates into support for the specific options, including rejoining, that the PM is putting on the table.
- Changed geopolitical circumstances (Ukraine, Trump) strengthen the case for closer EU ties rather than for other responses, such as deeper bilateral or NATO ties.
- Opposition to reopening the Brexit question reflects ideology and fear, not a good-faith view or a legitimate concern for democratic finality.
- Burnham's distinction between a 2016-style rerun and a future-facing debate is sincere and not a rationalisation of a policy change.
- The prime minister's ambiguity is a net positive for debate rather than evasion.