Keir Starmer Warned He Could Call Surprise Brexit Referendum to 'Save His Skin'

In a crowded Westminster office lined with history books, Alex Burghart, one of Kemi Badenoch's closest confidants, articulates a fear that haunts Conservative strategists: that Prime Minister Keir Starmer might, in desperation, gamble everything on a second referendum to reverse Brexit.

It is a provocative claim delivered with the urgency of a man who believes the political ground is shifting beneath the nation's feet—and that ordinary Britons have no idea how quickly the ground might give way.

Burghart, 48, serves as Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary. A former medieval historian turned political crusader, he represents the intellectual wing of Conservative opposition.

His assessment of the current government is withering: a failing, left-wing administration that neither understands nor respects Britain's history, incompetent at managing public finances, and destined to 'drive us off a cliff'. Yet his warning about Starmer and Brexit is more specific, more calculated, and more troubling than mere partisan criticism.

The Prime Minister has, to be fair, repeatedly insisted that 'Brexit is safe in my hands'. The Labour manifesto explicitly pledges 'no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement.'

Such commitments appear ironclad. Yet Burghart argues that Starmer's 'EU reset'—his government's strategy of negotiating closer alignment with Brussels in specific areas such as food standards, electricity market participation, and youth exchange schemes—contains a hidden contradiction that could eventually force Starmer's hand.

If Britain accepts European rules without having a say in their creation, Burghart argues, the political logic inexorably points towards full rejoin. 'We're taking all their rules but we have no say. We should be back at the table and that's why we need to rejoin the EU,' Burghart imagines pro-EU forces arguing.

The scenario is provocative. Starmer, facing possible electoral obliteration caused by economic stagnation and public frustration, might conclude that reversing Brexit—or at least asking the British people whether they wish to do so—represents his only path to political redemption.

'You know as well as I do that these are crazy political times and I wouldn't rule anything out,' Burghart says. 'If Keir Starmer thinks a referendum will save his skin, I wouldn't be surprised if he will call one.'

Brexit in Danger: How Starmer's EU Reset Contains the Seeds of Its Own Contradiction

The logical architecture underlying this concern is worth examining. Starmer's government is pursuing what observers call a 'Swiss-style' model of selective alignment with EU markets—accepting European rules in specific sectors to facilitate trade whilst maintaining Britain's independent trade policy with other nations. This model offers economic benefits without the political cost of full integration.

Yet as Labour backbenchers grow impatient with the pace of economic improvement, and as cabinet ministers like Wes Streeting and David Lammy float more ambitious proposals including a customs union, the debate has shifted subtly. No longer do senior Labour figures ask 'whether' Britain should move closer to Europe. They now ask 'how much closer' and 'how quickly'.

That rhetorical shift is significant. Once a government begins negotiating deeper alignment, the constituencies demanding full membership—business groups seeking seamless market access, young people chafing against immigration restrictions, progressive politicians impatient with compromise—will find it increasingly difficult to accept half-measures.

Keir Starmer's Political Gamble: Could a Referendum Become His Last Throw of the Dice?

What would drive Starmer to such a desperate measure? The answer, Burghart suggests, lies in the looming fiscal and economic crisis. National debt is projected to reach unprecedented levels. Taxes are already high and rising. Growth remains anaemic. Unemployment and social dysfunction spread. In such circumstances, a prime minister facing a political reckoning might persuade himself that reopening the Brexit question represents a necessary gamble—offering voters a choice between continued decline and a return to Europe.

Such a scenario remains speculative, even unlikely. Yet Burghart's warning illuminates a genuine tension within Starmer's strategy: the gap between where his government is heading and where it officially insists it will not go.