People arguing from contribution and legal status made the strongest case on the page, yet No won by two to one. The oddity is that the floor’s most-respected arguments all came from Yes, while the winning side’s case was more forceful in aggregate than in detail.
The best Yes voices treated Universal Credit as a reciprocal settlement rather than a nationality test. One asked, “Should I then be denied access to what I have contributed my tax toward”, while another insisted that settled-status holders had passed the necessary threshold: “Then and only then can they claim”.
No voters were less interested in the legal categories than in the principle of public provision, with one asking, “Why would we offer free stuff to a foreigner?” Even the more measured objections tended to attach conditions — work, taxes, integration or self-sufficiency — so the two sides often answered different questions: equal eligibility on one side, limits on the welfare state on the other.
That puts the vote inside the live argument over immigration and welfare, but the page’s sharper finding was about wording. Several voters resisted treating “foreign nationals” as a single class, while the No case gained energy from precisely that broad label; beneath the verdict was a repeated complaint that “the welfare state is a foundational pillar of modern Britain” but is “completely unsustainable if it is exploited”.
The chamber delivered a clear No, but its most respected reasoning was a defence of contribution, status and equal treatment rather than a rejection of them.
27 Opinions
It is simple. UK cannot finance the world and those that are trying are going to bankrupt the state. What will they then do ?
1.3M foreign UC claimants cost £6-8bn/yr, draining UK pensions & NHS. 400k+ undocumented migrants strain services; asylum UC costs hit £1.1bn. DWP runs race-based schemes (e.g., black-only mentoring) excluding White British jobseekers, creating two-tier welfare. Housing benefit inflates rents, displacing UK families. Welfare is for citizens who paid in, not a global right. Critics suggest 5-10yr qualifying periods and end to ethnic prioritisation.
Just because it appears we are being swamped with immigrants, doesn't mean that every single one is getting a free handout. A look on the government's web site will show who gets financial assistance and how much. Soon as they are in work, work which we depend on immigrants for, they pay their bills and taxes. Our NHS would collapse if we had no immigrants to work within it.
No is not quite right. I believe if you arrived the right way and have worked and paid taxes for 10 years then you should have access to benefits. But if you have never contributed then no.
Its not even a question of fair its insane. Anyone coming to this country should be self sufficient. I would love to see a brit go to Iraq and cash in a giro
This no vote assumes the claimants are not in work. I have no objection to claimants in full time work but not on a living wage.
Definitely too many. But I would probably one is too many. Giving citizenship after 20 or 30 years of actually paying into the system,ie more in than out would be fairer.
Why would we offer free stuff to a foreigner? If the bond here to work, pay taxes and integrate then that’s OK. But if they cannot earn enough - bye bye.
YES The question is to vague & open to misinterpretation. EG there's plenty of foreign nationals that have worked here for many years, often for their whole working lives paying UK taxes, who may now need the help of the state... Are they not only as entitled to help as say a British national that for one reason or another never worked? I know who'd I'd prioritise!
Not a straightforward yes or no. There is a lot of inequality in the welfare system, with many who have never contributed gaining a lot. To single out foreign claimants is wrong. Is someone from Europe, for example, who has worked for 3 or 4 years and contributed to the system any less deserving than someone who has left school and never worked a day in their life. I have a relative with 4 kids, 3 different fathers, unmarried, never worked, & is provided for by the state.