A push to reverse Brexit is gaining momentum, but it comes at a high cost.
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.”
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.”
BILLIONS BACK TO BRUSSELS — AND BRITISH TAXPAYERS COULD BE LEFT FOOTING THE BILL!
Political commentary and argumentative essay – approximately 1,200 words
Britain’s relationship with the European Union is once again creating controversy, with fresh questions over financial contributions, closer cooperation and the potential cost to British taxpayers. After Brexit was presented as an opportunity to end Britain’s financial obligations to Brussels, proposals for new agreements have reopened a politically sensitive debate: could the UK once again be required to send substantial sums of money to the EU in exchange for access to European programmes and markets?
The issue has attracted attention because the government is exploring closer cooperation in areas including electricity, education, food trade and regional development. Supporters argue that these arrangements could bring economic benefits. Critics, however, question whether ordinary taxpayers will ultimately carry the financial burden.
Brexit’s Financial Settlement Returns to the Spotlight
One important source of confusion is that Britain did not simply walk away from all its financial obligations when it left the European Union.
Under the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK agreed to settle outstanding commitments made during its membership, including pension liabilities and other financial responsibilities.
According to the European Commission’s 2025 accounts, the outstanding net amount receivable from the UK stood at approximately €10.76 billion at the end of December 2025. However, only €505 million was classified as due within the following 12 months. These are existing Brexit settlement obligations, not a newly negotiated payment for rejoining the EU.
This distinction matters because the financial settlement was agreed as part of the original Brexit arrangements. It does not automatically mean that Britain has reversed its decision to leave the European Union.
New EU Agreements Could Mean Additional Payments
The latest debate concerns something different: whether Britain should contribute financially towards new European programmes.
In March 2026, the EU authorised negotiations covering potential UK participation in its internal electricity market and a possible British financial contribution towards the EU’s cohesion policy.
Cohesion funding is designed to reduce economic and social inequalities between European regions. If Britain participates in the proposed arrangements, it could be required to make an agreed financial contribution.
However, the amount has not been finalised, and negotiations do not automatically mean that Britain has accepted a new multi-billion-pound bill.
This is precisely where the political controversy begins.
For Brexit supporters, one of the major advantages of leaving the EU was ending routine membership contributions to the European budget. Any new financial arrangement with Brussels therefore raises questions about whether the government is gradually recreating some of the obligations that Brexit was intended to remove.
Why Are British Taxpayers Concerned?
The financial pressure facing British households makes this debate particularly sensitive.
Families are already dealing with housing expenses, energy bills, food prices and taxation. Public services are also facing significant financial demands, particularly the NHS, local authorities and social care.
Against this background, taxpayers may reasonably ask why additional money should be committed to European programmes when domestic services require investment.
The government must explain what Britain would receive in return for any new contribution.
If participation in European programmes reduces energy costs, improves trade or creates economic opportunities, there may be a financial justification. But if the benefits are unclear or difficult to measure, public confidence could become harder to maintain.
Transparency will therefore be essential.
The Electricity Market Controversy
One of the most important areas under discussion is Britain’s potential participation in the European internal electricity market.
Closer integration could improve electricity trading between Britain and neighbouring European countries. It could also make the use of electricity interconnectors more efficient.
Reuters reported in January 2026 that the EU had linked potential access to its internal electricity market with a financial contribution towards regional development. The amount remained subject to negotiation.
The debate is therefore not simply about sending money to Brussels. It is also about whether the financial contribution could produce practical economic benefits for British consumers and businesses.
Nevertheless, the government must establish whether those benefits justify the cost and whether alternative arrangements could achieve similar results.
Reform UK and the Conservatives Demand Answers
The issue provides political opponents with an opportunity to question Labour’s approach to Brexit.
Reform UK has consistently argued that Britain should avoid arrangements that recreate the financial obligations associated with EU membership. Its position is that the government should prioritise national independence and domestic spending.
The Conservatives also face questions about their approach to Britain’s future relationship with Europe. Having overseen the original Brexit negotiations, they must explain which forms of cooperation they support and where they believe financial commitments should end.
Labour, meanwhile, must demonstrate that closer cooperation does not automatically mean abandoning the referendum result.
The political disagreement is likely to focus on three central questions:
-
How much money would Britain actually contribute?
-
What measurable economic benefits would taxpayers receive?
-
Would the agreements create obligations that could expand in the future?
These questions deserve clear answers before any major financial commitments are approved.
Could Britain Be Paying Billions Again?
The headline figure of billions can easily create confusion because several different financial arrangements are being discussed simultaneously.
Britain’s existing Withdrawal Agreement obligations involve billions of euros over time. Separately, proposed new cooperation agreements could involve additional contributions, but their final costs have not yet been established.
The distinction between these two categories is essential.
According to the European Commission’s published figures, the UK’s calculated contribution for 2026 under the existing settlement was approximately €478 million. This is not evidence of a new annual membership subscription or a payment for rejoining the EU.
The government must therefore avoid allowing separate financial commitments to become confused in public debate.
British taxpayers deserve to know exactly which payments are legally required, which are negotiated contributions and which remain only proposals.
What Happens Next?
The future of UK-EU relations will depend on negotiations and the government’s willingness to accept financial conditions attached to closer cooperation.
The EU has made clear that participation in certain programmes may require an appropriate financial contribution. Britain, meanwhile, wants arrangements that improve trade and economic opportunities without creating disproportionate costs.
There will inevitably be disagreements over how much Britain should pay and what influence it should receive in return.
The government must also consider whether the benefits will reach ordinary households rather than primarily benefiting large businesses or particular industries.
Ultimately, any agreement should be assessed according to its actual financial cost, economic benefits and long-term consequences.
Conclusion
The possibility of Britain making fresh financial contributions to European programmes has reopened one of the most sensitive questions surrounding Brexit: how much should the UK pay Brussels in exchange for closer economic cooperation?
The existing Brexit financial settlement already involves outstanding obligations, while new proposals concerning electricity markets and regional development could introduce additional costs.
However, no final multi-billion-pound payment for these proposed arrangements has been established.
For British taxpayers, the important issue is transparency. The government must explain how much money is involved, where it will go and what the country will receive in return.
Brexit was supposed to establish a different relationship between Britain and the European Union. Whether closer cooperation represents a practical economic opportunity or a costly compromise will depend on the details of the agreements ultimately reached.
The public deserves more than political slogans. It deserves clear figures, honest explanations and evidence that every pound of taxpayers’ money is being spent in the national interest.