For those who voted Yes, religious freedom ended where the statute book began. The question produced a clear preference for leaving when a faith’s core practices cannot be reconciled with UK law, though this self-selected online vote was less a cry for expulsion than a demand for legal primacy.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case said, “They should either change their practices or voluntarily leave.” But the next-best argument softened that position: “Be forced to integrate yes”, while other Yes voters stressed that people should know which practices are prohibited and decide whether to abandon them or go.
The strongest No voice did not challenge the law’s authority so much as reject compulsory departure: “They shouldn't have to leave, but it's a personal choice they have to make.” Another No argument recast the dispute around reform rather than incompatibility, pointing to sharia-inspired demands for “better protections for women in marriage” and family assets; the two sides were often answering different questions.
The debate then widened into the older British argument about a secular state and religious influence. Some Yes voters wanted to “ban ALL faiths!”, while another asked of Christian claims to scriptural authority, “where do we send them?” No voters likewise opposed theocracy and said governments should be secular, but worried that political parties appease organised faiths as their influence grows.
The room’s conclusion was hard-edged but not entirely simple: law must govern, while the choice between adaptation and departure remains personal. The vote drew the boundary firmly; the argument showed how much unease lies just beyond it.
26 Opinions
I voted no. They shouldn't have to leave, but it's a personal choice they have to make. Adapt aspects of their faith so it is compatible with the country in which they reside or choose to reside in a country that is compatible with their faith. Extremist followers of particular faiths are the problem and it also presents a barrier to integration. This will become a problem in the future and heads are firmly in the sand over this.
They should either change their practices or voluntarily leave. Otherwise, if their activities are illegal, they should be punished in accordance with the law.
The right to practise a religion in the UK necessarily exists within the framework of the law. Freedom of belief cannot confer a right to practices that are unlawful, nor can religious communities reasonably expect the law to bend around doctrines that conflict with it. If adherence to the core requirements of a faith is genuinely incompatible with the laws of the country in which one chooses to live, the obligation is on the individual to resolve that contradiction.
They should not be forced into leaving, but it should be made clear what practices are not allowed within the UK, so people can make their own decision about whether to give those practices up, or leave the country.
Leave is a little strong. Be forced to integrate yes. Many practices from around the world are not cohesive with our laws. We should have two teir anything. I know we have but it is wrong.
Religious practices in scripture is in most cases not practiced. In cases of sharia law it means different things to different Muslims in the uk and what they actually want from it for example: better protections for women in marriage and their entitlement to family assets than the UK family and inheritance laws currently provide
Freedom to to worship whatever sky daddy you want ,unless it impacts other people. That includes many Christians as well as those whom I assume the writer intended to include. But what happens when a white Christian who's family goes back to 1066 uses the Bible to own a person, stone them for wearing mixed fabric, or who they sleep with- where do we send them?
Simple answer, just ban ALL faiths!
Conflict with law suggests something illegal. IMO the reformation was won to rid the country of popish dogma. It was illegal to hold mass in this country for those reasons. The act of settlement says only a protestant can be monarch that should go for the rest of us.
Any breaking of the law should be frowned upon. Won't happen though, police and political class bottle it