As the Conservative Party leadership contest gathers momentum, much attention has been focused on the two remaining high-profile contenders, Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch, and their starkly different records on Brexit.
Looking back through the archives of Hansard reveals the contrasting positions the two candidates have taken on the UK’s departure from the European Union – a key issue for both the Conservative Party membership and the country at large.
Jenrick: Consistent and Uncompromising on Brexit
Robert Jenrick has been a stalwart Brexiteer since the vote to leave the European Union. Even though he didn’t initially vote for Brexit, his contributions in the House of Commons consistently reflect a determined approach to making Brexit a success, firmly rejecting any half-measures.
From the outset, Jenrick has been adamant that the UK should grasp the full benefits of Brexit, embracing new trade opportunities and reasserting sovereignty.
Perhaps most telling was his call in January 2024 to “rip up the Windsor Framework,” a bold statement that encapsulated his frustration with lingering EU influence. For Jenrick, the Windsor Framework, which governs post-Brexit trade arrangements in Northern Ireland, represents a lingering tether to Brussels that must be severed. His stance is clear: no compromises, no EU oversight, and complete control over British laws and trade.
Jenrick’s commitment to full Brexit has remained unwavering. From his post-referendum speeches to his recent parliamentary contributions, he has positioned himself as the candidate who will champion the UK’s newfound independence and tear down any remnants of the EU’s influence.
Badenoch: Supporter of Compromise, But Did She Understand the Cost?
In contrast, Kemi Badenoch’s record on Brexit is more nuanced – and, some might argue, conflicted. During Theresa May’s premiership, Badenoch went on record in the House of Commons supporting the now infamous Chequers plan and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in January 2019. Her speech revealed a cautious embrace of compromise, reflecting her satisfaction with aspects of May’s deal.
“I like the fact that it avoids a cliff edge, because of the transition period,” Badenoch said during the withdrawal debate. She also praised the control the deal appeared to offer over services, state aid, and monopoly law, all while highlighting the end of free movement and the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction.
However, the most surprising part of her remarks came when she described the backstop – a provision designed to avoid a hard border in Ireland but seen by Brexiteers as a trap to keep the UK tied to EU rules – as having “great advantages.”
For many staunch Brexiteers, Badenoch’s endorsement of the backstop raises eyebrows. The backstop, had it come into force, would have left the UK in a legal quagmire – stuck as a rule-taker without any say in future EU decisions. Trade deals would have been off the table, and Britain would have found itself in a position of economic servitude, a far cry from the vision of Brexit that voters were promised.
Badenoch’s reference to “tariff-free and quota-free access” for Northern Ireland under the agreement glosses over the critical issue: under the Chequers deal, the UK would have remained bound by EU rules, without the freedom to forge independent trade deals. Many critics argue that this would have amounted to a Brexit In Name Only (BRINO), something that hardcore Brexiteers have consistently fought against.
A Clear Divide
As the leadership race unfolds, the divide between Jenrick and Badenoch on Brexit couldn’t be clearer. Jenrick has been steadfast in his vision of a fully sovereign Britain, free to strike trade deals and govern itself without interference from Brussels. Badenoch, on the other hand, has shown a willingness to compromise, backing Theresa May’s softer Brexit deal that, had it passed, would have left the UK shackled to the EU’s rules.
The question for Conservative members now is simple: do they want a leader like Jenrick, who will bulldoze through the last vestiges of EU control, or someone like Badenoch, who has demonstrated an openness to compromise, even if that means accepting EU oversight in exchange for stability?
As the battle for the Conservative Party’s soul continues, the party faithful will be looking closely at these two candidates’ Brexit records – and deciding which vision they believe is best for the country’s future outside the EU and holding Labour to account.
Claire Bullivant, Editor
Claire is the founder and editor of the Conservative Post and was a co-founder of the Conservative Democratic Organisation. Claire is now setting up www.GreatBritishPAC.com. Pre-register today.
