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.
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.
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 fresh warning over Britain’s future immigration policy, claiming that a return to freedom of movement with the European Union could leave taxpayers facing billions of pounds in additional spending.
The Reform UK leader’s warning comes amid growing political tensions over Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s comments about the UK’s long-term relationship with Brussels. Burnham has called for an open discussion about future cooperation, prompting concerns among Brexit supporters that the country could eventually reconsider restrictions on movement between Britain and the EU.
Reform UK argues that reopening freedom of movement would increase pressure on public services, housing and government finances. Its latest analysis estimates that returning net EU migration to its pre-referendum average could require an additional £33 billion in infrastructure spending over a decade. The party also estimates that annual benefit spending could rise by billions of pounds. <Cite refs={[“turn104169search0″,”turn104169search1”]} />
Farage has described the prospect of restoring freedom of movement as a “catastrophe” for Britain, arguing that voters backed Brexit to regain control over immigration and national policy.
However, the £33 billion figure is a projection based on a particular migration scenario, not a confirmed bill that Britain would automatically have to pay. The assumptions behind the estimate, the potential economic contribution of new arrivals and the costs of additional public services all matter when assessing the overall impact.
The dispute has nevertheless put immigration and public spending back at the centre of the political debate.
Where does the £33 billion figure come from?
Reform’s calculation focuses on the potential infrastructure costs of a return to higher levels of EU migration.
Before the 2016 referendum, net migration from the EU averaged around 164,000 people a year, according to figures cited by the party. Reform argues that if migration returned to that level, Britain would need to invest more in infrastructure to maintain the existing level of public capital per person.
Drawing on figures attributed to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the party estimates that this would require approximately £3.3 billion in additional infrastructure spending each year.
Over ten years, that produces the headline figure of £33 billion.
The argument is that a growing population requires additional capacity in areas such as transport, housing-related infrastructure and public facilities. If investment fails to keep pace with population growth, existing services and infrastructure may face greater pressure.
Yet the projection depends on the scenario being considered and the assumptions used to calculate spending requirements. It should not be interpreted as evidence that every additional migrant creates the same public cost, or that all additional infrastructure spending represents a net loss to the economy.
Infrastructure can support economic activity as well as accommodate population growth. New residents may also contribute through income tax, National Insurance, VAT and other taxes, depending on their employment, earnings and circumstances.
Consequently, the £33 billion estimate describes a projected spending requirement under Reform’s scenario rather than a complete calculation of migration’s net fiscal effect.
Reform’s warning over welfare spending
The party has also highlighted figures concerning EU citizens with settled status who receive Universal Credit.
According to Reform’s October 2026 analysis, 744,679 people covered by the EU Settlement Scheme were claiming Universal Credit, with associated payments estimated by the party at £7.8 billion a year. Reform says £3.3 billion of that amount goes to people who are not in work. <Cite refs={[“turn104169search0″,”turn104169search1”]} />
Those figures have become a central part of the party’s argument that increased migration could lead to higher welfare expenditure.
But Universal Credit is a means-tested benefit, and eligibility does not depend solely on nationality or immigration status. Payments can support people in low-paid employment as well as those who are unemployed, and the total amount received by a group does not establish the net cost of that group to the public finances.
A complete assessment would also need to consider taxes paid, employment rates, household circumstances, public services used and the time period covered by the calculation.
The distinction is important because a figure describing total benefit payments is not the same as a figure showing the net fiscal impact of migration. The latter must account for both public spending and the revenue migrants contribute.
That broader calculation is more complex, and estimates can differ according to the groups examined and the assumptions used.