Andy Burnham is preparing for a UK-EU summit next month (Image: POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Britain will have to make radically greater payments into the European Union if the country rejoins with the bill potentially hitting £41billion, according to a eurosceptic think tank. The Bow Group has calculated the UK gross contribution could range from £28billion to £41billion – much more than the £14.4billion paid in 2019. This is based on the assumption there is no possibility the EU would agree to restore the permanent “rebate” negotiated by Margaret Thatcher.
Her former aide Lord Redwood, warned: “The UK would need to impose a large new tax; we cannot afford to go in. We would worry markets more with yet more borrowing. The last thing we need is yet more spending and laws from Brussels.”
According to the House of Commons Library, in 2016 – the year Britons voted to leave the EU – the UK made a gross contribution to the EU Budget of £13.1billion and a net contribution of £9.6billion.
Ben Harris-Quinney, who chairs the Bow Group, said: “Despite promises to accept Brexit the Labour party now seems to be set on the path of quietly taking Britain back into the EU. It’s important that the British public understands that doing so would be far more costly than our previous membership, to say nothing of a likely requirement to join the euro, far greater regulation, and further decades of uncontrolled borders.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Eurosceptics argue the EU wants the UK to return to boost the finances of the bloc. When Czech PM Andrej Babis was asked if would support the return of Britain to the EU, he said: “Yes of course. We need more money.”
Conservative shadow foreign minister Wendy Morton pointed to his words, saying: “Andy Burnham can’t find the cash to fund our defence, yet he seems comfortable with the idea of handing over billions to Brussels. Instead of trying to turn back the clock to 2016, he should focus on a plan for taking the country forward.”
David Campbell Bannerman fiercely opposes EU re-entry (Image: Paul Marriott)
A Reform UK spokesman warned: “Andy Burnham’s plan to reopen the divisions of the Brexit debate will not only betray the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit, but will also cost this country dearly. Shackling us to a crumbling bloc whose share of the global economy is rapidly declining will be an economic disaster for Britain, forcing us to become a rule-taker yet again and threatening £164billion worth of post-Brexit trade agreements.”
However, a spokesperson for the pro-EU group Best for Britain said it was “unlikely” the UK could not get “some for of rebate”, adding: “It isn’t an accurate calculation of the cost to the taxpayer, and ignores the £92billion GDP growth to our economy that will be gained from EU membership. A gross calculation of what the UK might have to pay as an EU member is like submitting a tax return without any business expenses, or claiming that your turnover is net profit. But voters facing increased living costs, and businesses swamped by red tape, will be relieved to hear that pro-Brexit voices are finally taking the prospect of UK membership of the EU seriously.”
David Campbell Bannerman, a former MEP who served as deputy leader of UKIP insisted that EU re-entry was “totally unaffordable”. He said: “We would be mad to rejoin and anyone trying to rejoin should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office.”
A Government spokesperson said: “These figures are completely speculative. We are building an ambitious, close relationship with the EU that will strengthen our economy and create more opportunities for young people and communities across the whole UK.”
Britons Warned of Huge ‘New Tax’ if UK Rejoins EU: ‘Billions Back to Brussels’
Britons have been warned that a return to the European Union could come with a substantial financial price tag, reigniting one of the most divisive arguments surrounding Brexit. As Prime Minister Andy Burnham signals a willingness to explore closer long-term ties with Brussels, critics are questioning whether British taxpayers could eventually face billions of pounds in additional contributions to the European budget.
The warning comes amid renewed debate over the UK’s future relationship with Europe. Supporters of closer cooperation argue that reducing trade barriers could boost economic growth, help businesses and improve relations with Britain’s largest neighbouring economic bloc. Opponents, however, fear that any move towards full EU membership could require significant financial commitments and concessions over national decision-making.
A recent estimate from the Eurosceptic Bow Group suggested that the UK’s gross annual contribution could reach between £28 billion and £41 billion if Britain rejoined the EU, depending on the assumptions used. The figures have prompted fresh questions about whether the potential economic benefits would justify the cost.
Former Conservative minister Lord Redwood, a prominent critic of closer European integration, warned that the country could face pressure to raise additional revenue or borrow more to cover such a commitment. His comments reflect the concerns of those who believe that returning to the EU could undermine one of the central financial arguments made by Brexit supporters.
However, the figures are estimates rather than an agreed bill. The precise terms of any hypothetical British return have not been negotiated, and the UK’s eventual contribution would depend on the arrangements agreed with the EU.
Why the Cost of Rejoining Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The financial debate has resurfaced because Burnham has indicated that Britain should consider a broader range of options for its future relationship with the EU.
Speaking in Parliament in October 2026, the Prime Minister argued that the existing arrangements were not sufficient and that the country should examine opportunities for closer cooperation over the longer term. His proposals have included improving trade arrangements, aligning certain food standards, linking emissions trading systems and expanding opportunities for young people to live, work and study abroad.
Burnham has presented closer European ties as a potential route towards stronger economic growth and greater cooperation on shared challenges. He has also stressed that decisions about Britain’s long-term relationship with the EU should ultimately be made by the British public.
Nevertheless, his willingness to discuss more ambitious arrangements has alarmed Eurosceptics, who fear that limited agreements could gradually develop into a much more extensive process of European reintegration.
For critics, the financial question is straightforward: if Britain were to seek full membership again, how much would taxpayers have to contribute, and what would the country receive in return?
The Bow Group’s estimate places the potential gross contribution substantially above the UK’s reported gross contribution of £14.4 billion in 2019. That comparison has become a central element of the argument against rejoining.
But gross contributions do not tell the whole story. EU membership involves payments into a shared budget, while funds can also flow back to member states through programmes supporting agriculture, research, regional development and other activities. The net financial cost would therefore depend on both the amount paid and the money received.
Furthermore, the UK’s previous budget rebate, negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, cannot simply be assumed to return under a future membership agreement. Equally, it cannot be established in advance that the UK would necessarily accept every financial term that might be proposed.
The debate is therefore about possible scenarios rather than a settled financial arrangement.
Would Rejoining Mean a New Tax?
The phrase “new tax” has attracted attention because it suggests that households could be asked to pay directly for Britain’s return to the EU.
Lord Redwood has argued that a large new financial commitment would require the government to find additional revenue or increase borrowing. His warning reflects a wider concern among Eurosceptics that the country could face difficult choices between financing European contributions and paying for domestic priorities.
However, there is currently no agreed EU-rejoining tax, and the estimated contribution does not automatically translate into a new tax on individual households.
A government facing higher expenditure could theoretically respond through several mechanisms: increasing certain taxes, reducing spending elsewhere, borrowing more or seeking economic growth that generates additional revenue. The eventual decision would depend on the size and timing of the commitment, the state of the public finances and the government’s wider priorities.
For households already concerned about the cost of living, the prospect of higher taxation is nevertheless politically sensitive. Families may question whether additional public spending commitments would leave less money available for the NHS, schools, social care, pensions, transport and local services.
Businesses could also scrutinise the implications. Companies that benefit from smoother trade with Europe might welcome closer integration, while others could worry about the regulatory requirements and financial obligations associated with renewed membership.
The key point is that the cost would not necessarily appear as a single, separately identified tax. Any financial consequences would depend on the actual agreement and how the government chose to fund it.
Until those details exist, claims that a specific new tax is inevitable should be treated as political warnings rather than established policy.
Brexit Supporters Say Britain Could Be Paying More for Less Control
For those who supported Brexit, the possibility of a substantially larger EU contribution raises questions about whether the country would regain the influence and financial flexibility it sought by leaving.
The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum, with approximately 52 per cent supporting Leave and 48 per cent supporting Remain. Britain formally left the bloc in January 2020.
Financial independence from the EU budget was among the arguments advanced by Brexit supporters. They maintained that money previously sent to Brussels could instead be directed towards domestic priorities.
Critics of rejoining argue that a future British government could be required to contribute significant sums without securing the same financial arrangements that existed during the UK’s previous membership.
They also point to wider questions about regulation, immigration, trade policy and the role of European institutions. Full EU membership would involve obligations extending far beyond budget payments, and the details would need to be negotiated.
The Conservative opposition has criticised the suggestion that returning to the EU would solve Britain’s economic problems. Other Eurosceptic politicians have argued that the government should concentrate on improving domestic productivity, public services and trade opportunities outside the bloc.
For these critics, the danger is not simply the amount of money involved. It is the possibility that financial contributions could accompany a broader transfer of policy responsibilities back to European institutions.
Supporters of rejoining dispute the idea that closer European integration would necessarily leave Britain worse off. They argue that membership could restore influence over decisions affecting British businesses and reduce the economic friction created by Brexit.
The disagreement ultimately concerns both money and sovereignty.
Supporters of Closer EU Ties Point to Economic Benefits
Those advocating closer relations argue that focusing exclusively on the cost of membership ignores the potential economic benefits.
Since Brexit, British businesses trading with the EU have faced additional customs procedures and regulatory requirements in some areas. Companies that export food, agricultural products and manufactured goods have had to navigate arrangements that differ from those in place when Britain was a member of the single market.
Supporters argue that reducing these barriers could make exporting easier, encourage investment and improve the competitiveness of British businesses.
The House of Commons Library has summarised research suggesting that Brexit has affected the UK’s long-term economic performance. An Office for Budget Responsibility forecast cited in a parliamentary petition estimated that UK productivity would be around four per cent lower in the long run than under a counterfactual scenario in which Britain remained in the EU. Such estimates are model-based comparisons, not a direct calculation of how much the country would gain from rejoining today.
Pro-European campaigners also argue that contributions to shared European programmes can generate returns through research funding, agricultural support, regional investment and cooperation in other fields.
During the recent parliamentary debate on rejoining, supporters argued that a stronger economy could generate additional tax receipts for public services. They contend that the relevant comparison should therefore include the potential costs of membership alongside its wider economic effects.
But these potential gains are not guaranteed. Their scale would depend on the terms of membership, the structure of the British economy, the rules adopted and the response of businesses and investors.
Rejoining would also involve difficult political negotiations. Britain could not assume that it would automatically regain all its former opt-outs or secure precisely the same arrangements it previously enjoyed.
The question is not simply whether the EU budget requires contributions. It is whether the total economic and political benefits would justify the obligations attached to membership.
The Government Has Not Announced a Plan to Rejoin
Despite the renewed debate, closer cooperation should not be confused with an agreed decision to restore full EU membership.
The government’s stated approach has focused on strengthening the relationship while ruling out an immediate return to the single market, customs union and freedom of movement. Burnham’s recent comments have nevertheless opened a wider discussion about possible future arrangements.
Options range from limited agreements designed to improve trade to more extensive participation in European economic structures. These alternatives would have different financial, legal and political consequences.
A closer trading relationship could involve specific contributions or regulatory commitments without requiring the UK to rejoin the EU as a full member. Conversely, full membership would involve a much wider set of obligations and negotiations.
The distinction matters because financial estimates based on full membership should not automatically be applied to individual cooperation agreements.
The EU’s position would also be crucial. Britain could not determine the terms of re-entry unilaterally. Any application would require negotiations with EU institutions and member states, with the final arrangements subject to the relevant approval procedures.
There is therefore no settled figure for what Britain would pay if it eventually rejoined. Estimates such as the Bow Group’s £28 billion to £41 billion range illustrate a possible financial scenario, but they do not establish the cost of a future agreement.
A Debate That Could Shape Britain’s Future
The warning about a potential “new tax” has brought the Brexit debate back to a familiar question: what price would Britain be willing to pay for closer economic integration with Europe?
For Eurosceptics, the prospect of billions of pounds in annual contributions reinforces concerns about taxation, sovereignty and the possibility of reversing the 2016 referendum decision.
For supporters of closer ties, the financial argument must be weighed against the potential benefits of lower trade barriers, improved economic cooperation and access to shared programmes.
Both sides face an important challenge. Critics need to distinguish between gross contributions and the net cost after money returning to Britain, while supporters need to explain how the benefits would materialise and whether they would outweigh the financial and political obligations.
Any serious assessment would require transparent calculations, clearly stated assumptions and a comparison of realistic alternatives. It would also need to explain the consequences for households, businesses and public services rather than relying solely on a headline figure.
For now, Britons have not been presented with an agreed bill for rejoining the EU, nor has a new tax been announced for that purpose. The figures being discussed are projections tied to a hypothetical future arrangement.
Yet the political significance is unmistakable. As the government considers how far Britain should move towards Brussels, the financial cost of membership is likely to remain one of the most contentious issues in the national debate.
Ultimately, the decision would involve more than calculating a contribution to the European budget. It would require the country to weigh economic opportunity against financial commitments, regulatory obligations and questions of national sovereignty.
Until the terms of any potential return are known, claims about the precise price should be treated with caution. But the argument over who pays, what Britain receives and who makes the final decisions is already back at the centre of British politics.