The findings concluded that while mass public attention remains on illegal migrant crossings, the “Joining Family Members” route for EUSS migrants serves as a permanent, open-ended visa conveyor belt.

The route has opened the back door to entering Britain for hundreds of thousands – over one-third of them from outside the EU.

Unlike the main scheme, it has no statutory closing date. The route allows those with a connection to existing applicants to apply for permanent residency in the UK.

Despite Labour’s claims that immigration numbers are coming down, the last year saw successful grants of Settled Status under this route more than double.

Official Home Office data on the EU Settlement Scheme has revealed that 8,941,726 cumulative applications have been processed.

Some 8,837,667 applications have been decided, and around 6.1million applicants have been approved.

Processing this continuing mountain of paperwork comes at a high cost. Over the last five financial years, from 2020/21 to 2025/26, Home Office data shows the department has spent £5.8billion purely on immigration and visa decisions.

The scheme’s 8,837,667 concluded applications have accounted for 31.1 per cent of the department’s total casework.

The pro-rata share of managing this single scheme has therefore cost an astronomical £1.8billion (£1,795,551,752) since 2020.

The £1.8billion cost is only for the processing, not for any benefits the migrants will be applying for and receiving.

Responding to the report, former Brexit Minister the Rt Hon David Jones argued that several years after the referendum, an immigration route created under the Brexit settlement is in fact “open to people from across the world”.

He said: “Very few Britons who voted to leave the EU envisaged that an agreement on the rights of EU citizens would have consequences on this scale, extending so far beyond the shores of Europe.

“Britain is struggling to provide enough homes, infrastructure and public services for its existing population. Yet successive governments of all political colours have clearly been content to allow these arrangements to continue with little or no public scrutiny.

“Ministers must now come clean about how many more people may be entitled to enter under the scheme. If the Withdrawal Agreement prevents Britain from exercising proper control of immigration, a future UK Government must do whatever is necessary to restore that control.”

Former Secretary of State Lord John Redwood hit out at the Government, declaring that “8.65 million extra people coming to live in the UK this century is far too many”.

He said: “Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers have allowed more than 6.1 million to come from the EU, the big majority of the new arrivals. Romania and Poland led this movement.

“Now Facts4EU reveal the shocking news that the EU Family Scheme is still being used to invite in many more, years after the Brexit vote to stop this.

“A third of the new visas are granted to people who originate outside the EU, using it as a stepping stone to living in the UK. Voters have voted in large numbers to say No to this, so why is the Government spending billions of taxpayer money inviting the world to Hospitality Britain via this EU scheme?”

The Secret Backdoor Bringing Migrants into Britain – And the £1.8 Billion EU ‘Stitch-Up’ Behind It

Britain’s immigration debate has taken another dramatic turn following allegations that a little-known post-Brexit immigration route is allowing hundreds of thousands of people to move to the United Kingdom through family connections. The controversy centres on the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), particularly a provision known as the ‘Joining Family Members’ route.

While political attention has largely focused on small boats crossing the English Channel, critics argue that another immigration route has received far less public scrutiny. They claim that the family reunification arrangements established following Brexit have created a continuing pathway for people from across the world to obtain residence rights in Britain.

A report produced by Brexit Facts4EU, Stand for Our Sovereignty and the Campaign for an Independent Britain has brought the issue into the political spotlight. Shared with GB News, the report raises questions about the number of people benefiting from the scheme, the government’s oversight and the financial cost to British taxpayers.

Its most controversial estimate suggests that administering the EU Settlement Scheme has cost approximately £1.8 billion since 2020.

The allegations have prompted renewed questions about whether Britain has maintained sufficient control over immigration following its departure from the European Union.

The Immigration Route Many People Know Little About

The EU Settlement Scheme was introduced to protect the residence rights of EU, European Economic Area and Swiss citizens who were living in Britain before the end of the Brexit transition period.

It was designed to provide legal certainty for people who had established their homes, families and careers in the United Kingdom.

However, the scheme also contains arrangements allowing certain eligible family members to join qualifying individuals who already have residence rights.

These provisions can apply to relatives who are themselves not European citizens.

This is the aspect that has attracted criticism from Brexit campaigners.

They argue that many British voters understood Brexit as a decision to regain greater control over immigration. In their view, the continued operation of family reunion arrangements has created a route that deserves much greater public examination.

However, it is important to understand that this is not an unrestricted immigration programme. Applicants must meet specific eligibility requirements, demonstrate the relevant family relationship and satisfy the applicable immigration rules.

The scheme also reflects commitments made under the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

The £1.8 Billion Question

One of the most striking figures in the report is its estimate that processing the EU Settlement Scheme has cost approximately £1.8 billion.

According to the figures cited by the researchers, the Home Office spent around £5.8 billion on immigration and visa decisions over the five financial years from 2020/21 to 2025/26.

The researchers then calculated that concluded EU Settlement Scheme applications accounted for approximately 31.1 per cent of the department’s total casework.

Applying that proportion to the overall expenditure produced an estimated cost of approximately £1.795 billion.

This figure has been presented as the administrative cost of processing the scheme.

However, an important distinction must be made: the £1.8 billion is a pro-rata estimate rather than a separately published Home Office invoice identifying the exact expenditure attributable to the scheme.

It also does not represent the total economic cost of migration, nor does it establish how much individual applicants have received in public benefits.

Nevertheless, the estimate raises legitimate questions about the resources required to administer large immigration programmes and whether the government provides sufficient transparency about public spending.

Taxpayers have a reasonable interest in understanding how immigration policies are funded and whether the money is being used effectively.

More Than Six Million Applications Approved

The scale of the EU Settlement Scheme is another reason why the issue has attracted attention.

Figures cited in the November 2026 report indicate that approximately 8.84 million applications had been decided, with around 6.1 million applicants receiving approvals.

These figures demonstrate the enormous administrative responsibility involved in protecting the rights established under the post-Brexit arrangements.

However, application numbers should not automatically be interpreted as the number of new migrants entering Britain.

Some individuals submitted applications after already living in the country, and application statistics can include repeat applications, changes in status and other administrative processes.

Similarly, a grant of settled or pre-settled status does not necessarily mean that an individual arrived in Britain during the period in which the application was processed.

This distinction matters because immigration statistics can easily be misunderstood when applications, approvals, arrivals and grants of permanent residence are treated as interchangeable figures.

The public deserves accurate information about each category.

Why Are People From Outside Europe Eligible?

Perhaps the most politically sensitive element of the controversy is that certain family members from outside the European Union can qualify under the scheme.

For example, an eligible EU citizen who established residence in Britain before Brexit may have family members living elsewhere in the world who qualify to join them under the relevant rules.

This can include spouses, civil partners, dependent children and certain other qualifying relatives, depending on the circumstances and applicable requirements.

Critics argue that the arrangement has consequences extending beyond the original purpose of protecting European citizens who had already built lives in Britain.

Former Brexit minister David Jones has questioned whether British voters understood the potential scale of these arrangements when they voted to leave the EU.

He has called for greater transparency about how many additional people could qualify and whether the government has sufficient control over the system.

Supporters of the arrangements, however, argue that protecting family unity was an important part of the Brexit settlement. They believe that changing the rules retrospectively could undermine commitments made to people who relied on the Withdrawal Agreement.

Has Brexit Really Restored Immigration Control?

The controversy raises a fundamental question about the meaning of Brexit.

One of the central arguments made by Leave campaigners in 2016 was that Britain should regain control over its immigration system.

Leaving the EU ended the automatic free-movement arrangements that previously allowed EU citizens to move to Britain for work and residence.

However, Brexit did not automatically cancel every immigration-related commitment made during Britain’s membership.

The Withdrawal Agreement preserved certain residence and family rights for people covered by its provisions.

Consequently, Britain continues to operate immigration arrangements that reflect obligations agreed as part of the withdrawal process.

This is not necessarily evidence of a secret agreement or an illegal immigration loophole. It is an example of how international agreements can continue to influence domestic immigration policy after a country leaves an organisation.

Nevertheless, politicians and voters can reasonably debate whether these arrangements remain appropriate and whether they should be reviewed within the limits of Britain’s legal commitments.

The Pressure on Housing and Public Services

Immigration remains closely connected to wider concerns about Britain’s ability to provide sufficient housing, healthcare, education and infrastructure.

Many communities are already experiencing pressure from rising housing costs, lengthy NHS waiting lists and shortages of affordable accommodation.

Critics of high immigration argue that population growth can increase demand for these services, particularly when investment in infrastructure does not keep pace.

They believe the government should provide clearer information about the relationship between immigration, population growth and public spending.

However, migration can also bring economic contributions. Migrants work in healthcare, construction, hospitality, transport and other sectors, pay taxes and help fill vacancies.

The overall effect depends on factors including employment, earnings, age, family circumstances and the availability of public services.

It would therefore be misleading to assume that every person receiving residence rights represents an identical financial burden on taxpayers.

The important question is whether government planning adequately accounts for population changes and ensures that communities have the resources they need.

Why the Government Must Answer Difficult Questions

The controversy presents a challenge for ministers because immigration remains one of the most closely watched political issues in Britain.

The government needs to explain clearly how many people have benefited from the family reunification provisions, how many are still eligible to apply and what the long-term implications may be.

It should also distinguish between people who arrived under the original settlement arrangements and relatives who subsequently qualified to join them.

Without this information, public discussion risks becoming dominated by political accusations rather than reliable evidence.

The Home Office should publish accessible statistics covering applications, approvals, refusals, nationalities, family relationships and the administrative costs of the scheme.

Such transparency would allow Parliament and the public to examine whether the system is operating as originally intended.

It would also help identify any genuine weaknesses that need to be addressed.

What Happens Next?

The future of the EU Settlement Scheme is likely to remain politically controversial.

Brexit campaigners want ministers to examine whether the family reunification arrangements have extended further than voters expected.

Others argue that Britain must honour its international commitments and protect the rights of families who qualify under the existing agreement.

Any attempt to make significant changes would need to consider the Withdrawal Agreement, domestic immigration legislation and the legal protections available to eligible individuals.

The debate also comes at a time when Britain is discussing closer cooperation with European countries on border security, asylum applications and the fight against people-smuggling networks.

These developments demonstrate that leaving the EU did not end Britain’s need to cooperate with European governments on immigration.

The challenge is finding arrangements that protect national interests while respecting legal commitments and maintaining effective border management.

Conclusion: Britain Deserves Transparency About Its Immigration System

The £1.8 billion controversy has brought an important and relatively complicated part of Britain’s post-Brexit immigration arrangements into public discussion.

The EU Settlement Scheme was originally designed to protect the rights of people who had established their lives in Britain before Brexit. Its family reunification provisions also allow certain eligible relatives, including people from outside Europe, to join them.

Critics believe the continuing operation and scale of this route deserve much greater scrutiny. Supporters argue that it fulfils commitments made during the Brexit process and protects the fundamental right to family life.

Both the scale of the scheme and its administrative costs deserve proper examination.

The government must explain how the system operates, how much it costs and how many additional people may qualify in the future. It must also ensure that official statistics distinguish between applications, approvals and actual arrivals.

Ultimately, immigration policy should not be hidden behind complicated legal arrangements or political slogans.

British taxpayers deserve to know how public money is spent. Parliament deserves accurate information about immigration commitments. And the public deserves an honest explanation of the consequences of the agreements made in its name.

Brexit was presented as an opportunity for Britain to take greater control of its future. Whether the country has achieved that objective is a question that ministers must be prepared to answer openly.

The £1.8 billion estimate may be disputed in its methodology, but the wider demand for transparency is unlikely to disappear.

---

Sources and further reading

1. <Link ref=”turn674271search1″ title=”British Bulletin – The Secret Backdoor Bringing Migrants Into Britain and the £1.8bn EU Stitch-up”/> – report published 10 November 2026.

2. <Link ref=”turn674271search0″ title=”GB News report reproduced by Talk Fuse”/> – summary of the campaigners’ findings.

3. <Link ref=”turn674271search3″ title=”University of Oxford Migration Observatory – UK-EU migration and asylum cooperation”/> – independent background on immigration arrangements.

4. <Link ref=”turn674271search5″ title=”Full Fact – Examination of claims about EU migration quotas”/> – fact-checking and clarification of EU migration-sharing claims.

Editorial clarification: The £1.8 billion figure is an estimate calculated by campaigners using a proportion of Home Office casework expenditure. It should not be presented as an independently verified, dedicated EU payment or as proof of an unlawful immigration scheme.