A demand to bar most foreign nationals from benefits won a clear Yes victory, but the chamber’s most respected arguments came from the side it rejected. The result was decisive; the reasoning was not.
Those backing the ban made a blunt case about reciprocity: “If you don't contribute to a country then you shouldn't be in it.” Others invoked a citizenship route or a long contribution test, while the winning side’s most-respected voice was less a defence than a rueful admission: “Can’t see how to undo such a calamitous mistake.”
The strongest No arguments turned on contribution rather than nationality. The floor rated highly the warning that denying support to settled taxpayers would be “fundamentally unfair”, and the description of welfare as “an insurance policy against unforeseen hardship”; another voice objected that this was “not a simple yes or no question”. The two sides were often answering different questions: whether newcomers should contribute before receiving support, and whether someone who has contributed should lose protection because of their birthplace.
The debate did contain attempts to narrow the proposition. Some Yes voters wanted a demanding residency threshold, while No voters proposed protecting people with settled status, sustained work histories or particular family circumstances, including spouses who had spent less time in the workforce. There was also agreement, in places, against illegal entry and abuse; the dispute was over whether those concerns justified a blanket nationality rule.
That leaves a verdict stronger in direction than in detail: the room endorsed exclusion, while its most persuasive dissent insisted that the welfare state is a reciprocal promise, not a passport test.
17 Opinions
I voted no because while there are a large number who shouldn't be eligible, this is not a simple yes or no question and it shouldn't be a blanket ban. A lot depends on the individual case. How long someone has been here, how much they have contributed. What benefits they bring to the country.
But it's based on their employment status. Come to the UK pay taxes and you are welcome to navigate NHS waiting times.
But it should be restricted to those EU nationals who are or have been working for more than two years
I voted yes but would qualify it with a test applied to Everyone .. a residency minimum of 16 years ..
Same answer for asylum,migrants etc When you pay in for 20 or 30 years more than you take out re health care child care education, then no paid in more then yes!
NO Why should anyone regardless of nationality be barred from getting benefits in a country they've paid tax in for all their working lives? Particularly when there's people who have never worked & will receive benefits purely because they've been born in that country. That's almost as immoral as royalty getting extreme privalage just because they've popped out of the right womb!
We cannot continue to support people who have paid nothing in to our system while sending billions of ‘ foreign aid’ abroad. Economic migrants are currently prioritised for nhs treatment such as free dentistry our own citizens cannot access. GP practices are reporting directives to allocate 20% time to them.and that’s not counting the burden of translation services and legal aid. It’s time to make this country less attractive.
Yes, the path to the citizenship is open for everyone.
If you don't contribute to a country then you shouldn't be in it.
Barring all foreign nationals regardless of contribution is fundamentally flawed. A skilled worker can hold settled status, contribute net-positively to our economy for years, yet later face redundancy or ill health. Our welfare system exists as an insurance policy against unforeseen hardship. If someone has paid into the system and made a life here, their country of birth shouldn't automatically disqualify them from support. Contribution and fairness must matter.