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 leave the UK facing a substantially higher financial contribution to Brussels, with a eurosceptic think tank estimating that annual gross payments could reach as much as £41billion.
The warning comes amid renewed political debate over Britain’s relationship with the EU, with Prime Minister Andy Burnham preparing for a summit with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen next month.
Supporters of closer ties argue that improved relations could boost trade, investment and economic growth. However, critics fear that any move towards rejoining the bloc could eventually require Britain to accept a significantly larger financial commitment than it made before Brexit.
The Bow Group has estimated that the UK’s annual gross contribution could range from £28billion to £41billion if Britain returned to EU membership under the assumptions used in its analysis. That compares with a reported gross contribution of £14.4billion in 2019.
The figures are estimates, not an agreed membership bill. Any future contribution would depend on the terms of accession, the EU’s budget arrangements, the UK’s economic performance and whether Britain secured financial concessions.
Nevertheless, the potential scale of the payments has become a new point of contention in the Brexit debate, with opponents warning that taxpayers could face additional pressure at a time when public finances are already under strain.
Lord Redwood, a former aide to Margaret Thatcher and a prominent eurosceptic, warned that rejoining could require the Government to raise additional revenue or borrow more.
“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,” he said.
His intervention reflects the argument that returning to the EU would not simply be a diplomatic decision. It could also involve significant long-term financial commitments, alongside questions about regulation, sovereignty and the future direction of British economic policy.
However, the suggestion that rejoining would automatically require a specific new tax has not been established. The Government has not announced a plan to take Britain back into the EU, and the estimated contribution does not demonstrate that ministers would necessarily introduce a dedicated tax to cover it.
EU contribution could rise sharply, think tank warns
The Bow Group’s estimate has drawn attention to the difference between the UK’s historic contribution to the EU budget and the amounts Britain might pay under a future membership arrangement.
According to the House of Commons Library, the UK made a gross contribution of £13.1billion in 2016, the year of the Brexit referendum. After accounting for the relevant financial flows back to Britain, its net contribution was £9.6billion.
The distinction between gross and net payments is important. A gross contribution measures the money paid into the EU budget before accounting for funds returning to the UK through EU programmes and other arrangements. The net contribution subtracts those receipts.
As a result, the gross figure alone does not provide a complete picture of the overall financial relationship between the UK and the EU.
The Bow Group’s calculations also assume that Britain would not recover the permanent budget rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher. The rebate was designed to correct what the former prime minister considered an unfair imbalance between Britain’s contribution to the European budget and the money it received back.
Whether the UK could secure a comparable arrangement in any future accession negotiations is unknown.
Andy Burnham is preparing for a UK-EU summit next month (Image: POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
A return to membership would require negotiations with the EU, and the terms would not necessarily replicate the arrangements Britain enjoyed before leaving. Equally, it would be premature to assume that the UK would have to accept every financial condition outlined in eurosceptic projections.
The final amount would depend on the negotiated settlement and the budget rules in force at the time.
Even with those qualifications, the prospect of a substantially higher contribution provides opponents of rejoining with a clear political argument: the public should understand the potential costs before the country considers reversing one of the most consequential decisions in its modern political history.
Lord Redwood warns against additional borrowing
Lord Redwood argued that the UK could ill afford another major financial commitment, particularly if it required increased borrowing or additional taxation.
His warning comes against a backdrop of pressure on public spending, with governments expected to balance investment in public services against the need to maintain confidence in the public finances.
An additional annual payment of tens of billions of pounds would be a significant sum. But its real economic impact would depend on how it was funded, what financial benefits accompanied membership and how the wider economy performed.
If the Government chose to finance additional expenditure through higher taxes, the burden could fall on households or businesses, depending on the tax measures selected. If it borrowed more, the effect would depend on borrowing costs, economic growth and the Government’s fiscal position.
Those are potential scenarios rather than confirmed consequences of any current policy.
Supporters of EU membership argue that focusing exclusively on the contribution would overlook possible economic gains from closer integration with Britain’s largest nearby trading bloc. Opponents counter that projected benefits are uncertain and should not be used to dismiss the direct cost of membership.
The disagreement illustrates a central problem in the debate: the financial contribution can be estimated under particular assumptions, but the overall economic result depends on a much broader range of factors.
For taxpayers, the key question is whether the benefits of any future arrangement would justify its costs. Answering that would require more than a headline figure for gross payments.
Labour accused of quietly reversing Brexit
Ben Harris-Quinney, chairman of the Bow Group, accused Labour of moving towards closer EU integration despite the political commitment to respect the result of the 2016 referendum.
“Despite promises to accept Brexit the Labour party now seems to be set on the path of quietly taking Britain back into the EU,” he said.
He argued that voters should understand the potential financial consequences of membership, as well as the implications for regulation, immigration and the UK’s currency arrangements.
Mr Harris-Quinney also raised the possibility that a future member state could face pressure to join the euro. However, the UK’s position in any accession negotiations would depend on the terms agreed, and a return to membership would not automatically settle every question about currency policy.
The debate has intensified as politicians consider how far Britain should go in rebuilding its relationship with Brussels following Brexit.
There is an important distinction between improving cooperation with the EU and seeking full membership. Agreements on trade, security, research or other areas do not necessarily require the UK to rejoin the bloc or accept the same obligations as a member state.
David Campbell Bannerman fiercely opposes EU re-entry (Image: Paul Marriott)
The Government has maintained that it wants a closer relationship with the EU while stopping short of announcing a policy of re-entry.
Conservative shadow foreign minister Wendy Morton criticised Burnham over the prospect of further payments to Brussels, arguing that the Government should prioritise domestic spending commitments.
“Andy Burnham can’t find the cash to fund our defence, yet he seems comfortable with the idea of handing over billions to Brussels,” she said.
“Instead of trying to turn back the clock to 2016, he should focus on a plan for taking the country forward.”
Her comments connect the EU debate to a broader argument over national priorities. Critics of rejoining say additional contributions could compete with spending on defence, public services and infrastructure.
Those who favour closer European integration, however, argue that the relationship should be judged by its overall economic and strategic value rather than by the contribution in isolation.
Reform UK warns of economic consequences
Reform UK has also criticised the prospect of Britain returning to the EU, arguing that it would undermine the result of the referendum and reduce the UK’s ability to set its own rules.
A party spokesman said: “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.”
The spokesman also argued that rejoining could threaten the UK’s ability to benefit from trade agreements negotiated after Brexit, citing agreements collectively valued at £164billion.
That figure should not be interpreted as a confirmed loss that would automatically follow EU membership. The consequences for individual trade agreements would depend on their terms, the UK’s relationship with the EU and any arrangements negotiated during a potential accession process.
Nevertheless, the argument highlights one of the central questions surrounding re-entry: whether the benefits of closer access to the European market would outweigh any constraints on Britain’s independent trade policy.
Leaving the EU allowed the UK to negotiate its own trade agreements, although the economic benefits of those deals depend on their terms and how businesses use them. Rejoining could require Britain to reassess aspects of its existing arrangements, but the precise implications would depend on the accession terms.
David Campbell Bannerman, a former Member of the European Parliament and former deputy leader of UKIP, went further in his criticism, describing re-entry as “totally unaffordable”.
He said: “We would be mad to rejoin and anyone trying to rejoin should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office.”
His statement represents a political opinion, rather than evidence that pursuing EU membership would constitute a criminal offence. Any decision about rejoining would have to be assessed under the relevant constitutional and legal framework.
The strength of the rhetoric nevertheless demonstrates how divisive the issue remains, even years after Britain formally left the bloc.
Pro-EU campaigners challenge the £41billion estimate
Supporters of closer EU ties have disputed the way the projected contribution has been presented, arguing that a gross payment figure cannot be treated as the final cost to British taxpayers.
A spokesperson for Best for Britain said it was “unlikely” that the UK would be unable to secure “some form of rebate”.
The organisation also argued that the estimate failed to account for potential economic benefits, citing a claimed £92billion boost to gross domestic product from EU membership.
That figure is a claim advanced by the pro-EU side of the debate and should not be treated as a guaranteed outcome. The economic effects of membership would depend on the terms agreed, the response of businesses and consumers, and wider conditions in the UK and European economies.
The spokesperson compared a calculation based on gross contributions alone to assessing a business by its turnover without deducting its costs.
The argument reflects a fundamental difference between the two sides. Eurosceptics emphasise the direct payments and potential obligations associated with membership, while pro-EU campaigners argue that the assessment must also include the value of trade, investment and economic cooperation.
Neither the contribution estimate nor the claimed GDP benefit, considered in isolation, settles the question of whether rejoining would be economically advantageous.
A meaningful comparison would need to assess the expected costs and benefits against a credible alternative, including the UK’s existing trading arrangements and any closer cooperation that could be achieved without full membership.
Government insists no re-entry plan has been announced
The Government has rejected the suggestion that the figures demonstrate a concrete plan to take Britain back into the EU.
A 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.”
The statement underlines the distinction between closer relations with Brussels and full membership.
A UK-EU summit can address areas of cooperation without committing either side to accession negotiations. Any decision to seek re-entry would involve major political and legal questions, as well as negotiations over the terms of membership.
For now, there is no confirmed proposal establishing that Britain will rejoin the EU, no agreed annual contribution of £28billion to £41billion and no announced tax designed to finance such a payment.
The estimates have nevertheless given opponents of rejoining fresh ammunition as the debate over Brexit’s long-term consequences continues.
Ultimately, the argument will depend on more than whether Britain would pay billions into the EU budget. It will require a detailed assessment of the financial terms, economic opportunities, regulatory obligations and political trade-offs involved.
For voters, the central question is whether closer integration would deliver enough measurable benefit to justify its cost. For the Government, the immediate challenge is to explain how its current approach to the EU differs from a return to membership and to ensure that speculation does not become confused with official policy.