![\"Murcia](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Murcia-San-Javier-6896703.jpg\" "\\"Murcia")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Murcia San Javier closed on January 14, 2019 (Image: Wikicommons)<\/p>\n
Millions of euros in EU<\/a> funding have been funnelled into “ghost” airports<\/a> across Europe \u2014 and British taxpayers are still footing some of the bill years after leaving the bloc, it has been claimed. Frank Furedi, executive director of MCC Brussels, blamed what he called “the sellout Brexit deal” negotiated by the Tories and endorsed by Labour as creating a situation when the UK is still on the hook to Brussels for failed and failing infrastructure projects.<\/p>\n The European Commission\u2019s Financial Transparency System (FTS)<\/a> provides a public record of the EU budget, yet it contains a significant structural gap regarding regional infrastructure. While the FTS analysis tool tracks funds managed directly by Brussels, it typically excludes “Shared Management” projects\u2014the category responsible for approximately 75% of EU spending, including the development of regional airports.<\/p>\n Read more:<\/strong> Ryanair threatens to axe more flights to Spain <\/a><\/p>\n Read more:<\/strong> Major airlines forced to axe thousands of flights out of world’s busiest airport <\/a><\/p>\n At Badajoz Airport, \u00a35.3 million (\u20ac6.15 million) was spent despite there being no pressing need to do so (Image: Wikicommons)<\/p>\n Mr Furedi highlighted a 2014 investigation by the European Court of Auditors<\/a> which examined EU-funded airport projects across multiple member states. It found repeated cases in which regional airports were expanded despite weak demand, declining passenger numbers, or limited long-term viability.<\/p>\n The reason such “ghost” projects continue to haunt the public purse is due to the EU\u2019s “drip-drip” reimbursement model, known as the Reste \u00e0 Liquider (RAL).<\/p>\n Under this system, the European Commission does not pay for major infrastructure projects in a single lump sum; instead, it settles bills in instalments over many years as work is completed. Despite the UK’s departure from the bloc, Article 140 of the Withdrawal Agreement legally binds British taxpayers to pay their share of these outstanding commitments made during the 2014\u20132020 budget cycle.<\/p>\n Mr Furedi said: \u201cBritish taxpayers continue to pay for EU waste such as this thanks to the sellout Brexit<\/a> deal negotiated by the Conservatives<\/a>, and Labour are happy to continue giving the EU billions for years to come. The EU\u2019s record on funding so-called \u2018ghost airports\u2019 is a textbook case of bureaucratic vanity projects trumping common sense.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFrom Spain<\/a> to Greece, we see the same pattern repeated: airports expanded despite falling passenger numbers or even shuttered entirely after EU money was spent. This isn\u2019t investment – it\u2019s institutionalised waste.\u201d<\/p>\n The report highlighted several cases where major infrastructure investment did not translate into sustained usage. In some instances, airports were later closed to commercial traffic or left significantly underused. One of the most cited examples is Murcia-San Javier Airport, which received about \u00a317.3 million (\u20ac20 million) in EU funding for runway, taxiway and control infrastructure.<\/p>\n \u00a35.2million (\u20ac6 million) was spent at Vigo airport – with no discernible boost to passenger numbers (Image: Wikcommons)<\/p>\n Auditors found delays in bringing facilities into operation and a 43% drop in passenger numbers between 2007 and 2013. The airport closed to commercial flights in 2019, with services transferred to a nearby replacement facility.<\/p>\n Mr Furedi explained: \u201cMurcia-San Javier is a striking example – \u20ac20 million spent, only for passenger operations to be shut down entirely a few years later. If this happened in the private sector, there would be outrage and accountability. In Brussels, it\u2019s business as usual.\u201d<\/p>\n At Badajoz Airport, \u00a35.3million (\u20ac6.15 million) was spent on terminal and runway upgrades. The Court of Auditors found no pressing need for expansion, with low utilisation even at peak times and a 68% fall in passenger numbers over the audit period.<\/p>\n Mr Furedi added: \u201cEven where airports remain open, like Vigo or Badajoz, the evidence shows dramatic drops in passenger numbers after expansion. These are not engines of growth – they are monuments to flawed Soviet style central planning right at the heart of the European Union<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n In Vigo Airport, \u00a35.2million (\u20ac6 million) in EU funding was spent on the terminal. Auditors found the upgrades failed to generate additional passenger traffic, with usage falling by more than half between 2007 and 2013.<\/p>\n The report also highlighted significant overlap with nearby airports. Mr Furedi stated: \u201cWhere funds are allocated, there is very little incentive to ask whether the project is needed or viable.\u201d<\/p>\n Other airports referenced in the audit include regional facilities in Cordoba, Kastoria, Burgos and Crotone, as well as larger island airports such as La Palma Airport and Fuerteventura Airport.<\/p>\n Starmer: ‘We are not the Britain of the Brexit years anymore.’ <\/p>\n The term \u201cghost airports\u201d is used by critics to describe regional airports that receive substantial public funding but end up significantly underused, financially unsustainable, or in some cases later closed to commercial traffic. It is not an official EU designation but is widely used in debates about infrastructure spending.<\/p>\n Mr Furedi observed: \u201cThe deeper issue here is a system that rewards spending for its own sake. Once funds are allocated, there is very little incentive to ask whether the project is needed or viable.\u201d<\/p>\n Tracking more recent EU spending at individual airports is difficult, as funding is often channelled through national or regional authorities rather than directly attributed to specific sites.<\/p>\n That makes transparency more complex in public databases maintained by the European Commission. The issue has also been tied to the UK\u2019s ongoing financial obligations under the Brexit<\/a> Withdrawal Agreement, under which Britain continues to contribute to agreed EU commitments despite leaving the bloc.<\/p>\n Treasury figures suggest total UK net payments will reach around \u00a325 billion by 2025, with a further \u00a35\u201310 billion expected thereafter.<\/p>\n According to the latest HM Treasury figures released in March 2026, the UK still faces roughly \u00a35.3 billion in future outstanding net liabilities to the EU.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This means that as regional authorities in Spain or Greece submit final “completion bills” for airports commissioned over a decade ago, the UK continues to receive bi-annual invoices to cover its portion of the costs\u2014effectively paying off the mortgage<\/a> on European infrastructure long after the British public voted to leave.<\/p>\n Mr Furedi warned: \u201cBritish voters were promised freedom from precisely this kind of waste when they chose to leave the European Union.<\/p>\n![\"Badajoz\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/AeropuertBadajoz-copy-6896726.jpg\" "\\"Badajoz\\"")
<\/p>\n![\"Vigo\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Vigo-6896728.jpg\" "\\"Vigo\\"")
<\/p>\n