Nigel Farage warns of the cost of rejoining the EU’s freedom of movement scheme (Image: Getty)
Surrendering control to the EU by signing up to freedom of movement would land British taxpayers with a crippling multi-billion-pound bill, Reform UK has warned. Nigel Farage’s party claims it would heap a huge, permanent burden on the public purse in welfare, infrastructure and other benefits.
The stark warning came after Andy Burnham was humiliated when his own Downing Street spin-doctors slapped down his Brexit pledge just hours after he made it. The Prime Minister insisted Britain would never return to free movement without a referendum, only for No 10 to say he was not proposing any return at all. Reform’s figures claim that 744,679 EU nationals with settled status are already claiming Universal Credit at a cost of £7.8billion a year. Of that, £3.3billion goes to people who do not work at all.
If net EU migration returned to its pre-referendum average of 164,000 a year, Reform says, Britain would need an extra £3.3billion every year on infrastructure alone.
The party claims that would mean some £33billion over a decade. Mr Farage’s party claims taxpayers could also be hit with an extra £2.2billion a year in benefit payments.
It warns the EU project itself has further transformed since the UK’s historic vote to Leave in 2016. Reform says 88% of the 1.17million people who gained EU passports in 2024 came from outside the bloc, mainly from the Middle East and Africa.
Should Mr Burnham surrender and agree to freedom of movement as part of talks with Brussels, then they would have the automatic right to live and work in Britain.
Mr Farage said: “The British people voted to take back control of our borders. Any return to free movement would not only be a betrayal but would spell catastrophe for Britain.
“It would mean higher taxes, masses more pressure on housing, schools and the NHS, plus an open invitation for millions more people to come here and claim benefits. We will never accept it.”
The extraordinary climbdown has left the Government’s Brexit stance in chaos. Speaking to reporters, Mr Burnham vowed he would “never move ahead of the British public when it comes to Brexit”.
Yet by the afternoon, his spokeswoman was desperately rowing back. She said: “So, the Prime Minister isn’t proposing a return to freedom of movement, or any option.”
She added that he was “crucially not leaning either way”. It came days after Mr Burnham told The Sunday Times he wanted an “honest discussion” about free movement.
He is due to meet EU chiefs in November for a long-awaited summit on the country’s future relationship with Europe.
Shocking £33bn Cost of Open-Doors Migration Policy Revealed – ‘Catastrophe for Britain!’
Nigel Farage has issued a fierce warning over the potential cost of closer immigration ties with the European Union, claiming British taxpayers could face a multibillion-pound bill if the UK were to return to freedom of movement.
The Reform UK leader’s warning follows renewed debate over Britain’s future relationship with Brussels and whether any closer economic cooperation could eventually involve changes to immigration arrangements.
The headline figure is £33 billion over a decade. According to figures attributed to Reform UK, this represents the potential additional infrastructure spending that could be required if net migration from the EU returned to the annual levels seen before the Brexit referendum.
The party also argues that increased migration could create additional pressure on welfare spending, housing, schools and the NHS. However, the £33 billion figure is a political estimate based on assumptions about future migration, not an established bill already owed by taxpayers. <Cite refs={[“turn257025search0″,”turn257025search1”]}/>
The dispute has reignited a fundamental question about Britain’s post-Brexit future: how can the country maintain control over immigration while pursuing closer economic cooperation with its European neighbours?
For Farage, the answer is clear. He argues that freedom of movement would reverse a central objective of Brexit and risk placing additional demands on public services that are already under pressure.
Supporters of closer EU relations, meanwhile, argue that cooperation with European countries could bring economic advantages, improve trade and help businesses recruit workers. The challenge is determining what any agreement would actually involve and how its costs and benefits would be distributed.
Where does the £33bn figure come from?
The figure highlighted by Reform is based on a projection of what additional infrastructure spending might be needed if net EU migration returned to an annual average of approximately 164,000 people.
According to the figures reported in October 2026, Reform estimates that such an increase could require an additional £3.3 billion annually for infrastructure.
Multiplied over ten years, that produces the headline figure of £33 billion.
The party argues that additional population growth would require investment in areas such as transport, housing, schools and other public facilities.
However, the calculation depends on several assumptions, including the number of people who would arrive, how long they would remain in Britain, where they would settle and how much additional infrastructure the Government would need to provide.
The estimate should therefore be treated as a projection rather than a definitive forecast of the eventual cost of migration.
There is also a distinction between the cost of expanding public infrastructure and the overall fiscal impact of immigration. The latter takes account of taxes paid by migrants as well as public spending associated with their presence in the country.
A complete assessment must consider both sides of that equation.