The country voted. The country left. Yet six years later, large sections of the political and media debate continue to behave as though discussing Brexit's consequences is somehow more controversial than Brexit itself.

The BBC article repeatedly takes readers back through the political history of Brexit. David Cameron. Theresa May. Boris Johnson. Negotiations. Deadlock. Referendums. Elections. Arguments.

It was a strikingly botched painful exercise in political memory. What is less striking is any serious examination of a far simpler question: What do British voters think today?

If democracy is about the people, their opinions today are the single most important factor to be considered. Not yesterday. Not ten years ago. Today. That principle should not be controversial.

Yet much of the discussion surrounding the Conservative party's Brexit still treats current public opinion as secondary to a vote held in 2016 - after 10 years of chaos it's surprising it wasn't debated earlier.

The underlying assumption appears to be that democratic authority belongs primarily to the electorate of the past rather than the electorate of the present. That is a remarkable position for a democratic society to adopt.

Because the public of 2026 is not the public of 2016. Millions of younger citizens have entered adulthood.

Millions of older voters have passed away. Economic circumstances have changed. International events have changed. Political priorities have changed.

And public opinion may have changed too. That is not democracy failing.

That is democracy functioning exactly as it is supposed to - by the people - for the people.

No generation owns the future forever. No electorate can permanently settle every question for every citizen who follows. Yet whenever closer cooperation with Europe is discussed, the conversation frequently returns to the same accusation:

Betrayal. But betrayal of whom? The voters of 2016? Or the voters of 2026?

The BBC article spends considerable time explaining why Burnham believes Brexit has done more harm than good. It also spends considerable time explaining why opponents think he is wrong.

What it spends far less time examining is whether today's electorate should ultimately be entitled to make that judgement for themselves. That omission matters.

*The real debate is whether democracy belongs primarily to history or to the people living with its consequences today. Not to the Multi Billionaire owners and Editors of right wing media*

That is why the most revealing aspect of the article is not the discussion of Europe. It is the discussion of time.

When media organisations describe closer UK-EU discussions as reopening old arguments, they are making an implicit choice about which public matters most.

The public that voted then. Or the public that lives here now. For many citizens the answer is straightforward.

If democracy belongs to the people, then today's people cannot become secondary participants in decisions about their own future. On the 30th September, even 64% of the people who voted to 'leave' the EU supported closer ties to the EU - and only 24% opposed it?

This is not a Brexit question. This is a democracy question. And one that only a true democratic party would support - any parties that don't do not have British citizens' interests at the top of their agenda - so where are 'their' interests then?