Reform UK discussion

[AlterEgo]

Why should they though? Why are Reform proposing to do this, other to court the votes of xenophobes?

Citizenship costs money, with no guarantee of success.

Indeed, citizenship is usually a fairly expensive process, as is getting married (though getting citizenship has far better long term odds than anyone's marriage!). My immigrant, natrualised wife thinks this is an entirely fair proposal, there is an avenue for citizenship and it is one which demonstrates commitment to your new home.

It may be the intention of the policy is to court some votes, but it is not a far-right policy by any means.

 

[Farigiraf]

Indeed, citizenship is usually a fairly expensive process, as is getting married (though getting citizenship has far better long term odds than anyone's marriage!). My immigrant, natrualised wife thinks this is an entirely fair proposal, there is an avenue for citizenship and it is one which demonstrates commitment to your new home.

It may be the intention of the policy is to court some votes, but it is not a far-right policy by any means.

An adult who moved to the UK sometime in the last 30 years, has had let's say 2 kids, worked for a good chunk of those 30 years (unlike, say, some of the voters in favour of such a policy) but suddenly they or their children need benefits for one of the many reasons you'd need them, would face citizenship fees upwards of £1000-2000, which you likely wouldn't have if you're applying for benefits.

 

[AlterEgo]

An adult who moved to the UK sometime in the last 30 years, has had let's say 2 kids, worked for a good chunk of those 30 years (unlike, say, some of the voters in favour of such a policy) but suddenly they or their children need benefits for one of the many reasons you'd need them, would face citizenship fees upwards of £1000-2000, which you likely wouldn't have if you're applying for benefits.

Then they should have become a citizen in the 30 years they have chosen to live here.

 

[zero]

Citizenship costs money, with no guarantee of success.

For now, it's still a tick box exercise. If you've actually been living in the UK and you haven't committed any crimes it is basically guaranteed. The longer you leave it, the more expensive it will get. If Reform becomes the governing party, I am sure they will also make it more difficult.

 

[Krokodil]

For now, it's still a tick box exercise. If you've actually been living in the UK and you haven't committed any crimes it is basically guaranteed. The longer you leave it, the more expensive it will get. If Reform becomes the governing party, I am sure they will also make it more difficult.

However if someone is Slovakian (for example), they cannot take on a new citizenship without giving up their original one.

 

[zero]

However if someone is Slovakian (for example), they cannot take on a new citizenship without giving up their original one.

Yeah that is true for about half of the world, but it's a trade-off you have to make when you choose to move to the UK.

I may have more sympathy if the originating country previously permitted multiple citizenship, then started forbidding it after one had already migrated to the UK - but I don't know of any country which has done that recently and the worldwide trend over the past decades has been to reduce restrictions.

I do accept that Brexit changed things, but the UK shouldn't formulate its welfare policies based on citizenship rules of foreign countries.

 

[nw1]

Yeah that is true for about half of the world, but it's a trade-off you have to make when you choose to move to the UK.

I may have more sympathy if the originating country previously permitted multiple citizenship, then started forbidding it after one had already migrated to the UK - but I don't know of any country which has done that recently and the worldwide trend over the past decades has been to reduce restrictions.

I do accept that Brexit changed things, but the UK shouldn't formulate its welfare policies based on citizenship rules of foreign countries.

I still don't understand why they want to deny benefits to a long-term UK resident from an EU country, other than to court votes from those with strident views.

To be honest, the fact that people appear to be somewhat excusing the policy is a worrying sign of how much to the right the UK population appears to have drifted on this matter. Strident anti-immigration policies - applied at existing residents rather than new arrivals - seem to be now well within the Overton window and it appears to be that those of us who believe in robust rights for existing residents, and have pro-immigration views more generally, are increasingly considered to be on the fringe left!

It would be one thing if cutting illegal immigration was the policy. However I cannot understand denying benefits to long term and law-abiding existing residents. I say again, why should (let's say) a German national who arrived in (let's say) 1993 not be able to claim benefits if they lost their job? They arrived in the UK in good faith on the expectation that the UK would remain part of the EU indefinitely - I think a lot of people are forgetting this. They've already had to go through the process of settled status - not that easy, the settled status app is horrendously buggy at times - now Reform want to deny them benefits?

I'm sorry, I still think it's Reform being the unreasonable ones here.

Then they should have become a citizen in the 30 years they have chosen to live here.

Again, why? Why do you seem to be excusing Reform policy, rather than being charitable towards the long-term resident and taking the position of maintaining their existing rights? See above - it's really worrying how the Overton window is shifting on this matter.

 

[35B]

Again, why? Why do you seem to be excusing Reform policy, rather than being charitable towards the long-term resident and taking the position of maintaining their rights? See above - it's really worrying how the Overton window is shifting o this matter.

I think citizenship is being used politically as a proxy for both “belonging” and contribution. Both are important aspects of identity which have been allowed to fall down the priority order.

The result of the limited focus on these is that there is a widespread belief that people milk the benefits system, and that people with poor connections are able to do so. Both are myths, and the tabloid coverage of (usually Muslim) citizens who don’t show “British values’ highlights how little formal status is really what matters.

Personally, I’d focus on resuscitating the contributory principle and ensuring that there’s a clear audit trail for people of what they’ve paid in. For those who object to Faragist nativism, that’s likely to work much better than debating whether those who’ve settled here should or shouldn’t be citizens - those arguing for it risk embedding his nativism which will move the goalposts, those for universal access risk reinforcing his attempts to undermine the principle of the safety net.

 

[AlterEgo]

Again, why? Why do you seem to be excusing Reform policy, rather than being charitable towards the long-term resident and taking the position of maintaining their existing rights? See above - it's really worrying how the Overton window is shifting on this matter.

You will find Reform's policy here would be in line with what a great many immigrants think who have decided to become British citizens. Many of those people came into the country, were denied recourse to public funds on their visas, and had to work hard and wait to become citizens. A lot of those people think that is important because by getting citizenship it shows commitment and belonging.

I couldn't care less if a government enacted this policy or not; I have far bigger objections to Reform. But I understand why it might be popular in some circles. This is not a case of the Overton window moving; that you label a policy like "only citizens should be able to claim benefits" as far right idea probably suggests you don't know where the Overton window has been for decades.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2026 ==

I say again, why should (let's say) a German national who arrived in (let's say) 1993 not be able to claim benefits if they lost their job? They arrived in the UK in good faith on the expectation that the UK would remain part of the EU indefinitely - I think a lot of people are forgetting this. They've already had to go through the process of settled status - not that easy, the settled status app is horrendously buggy at times - now Reform want to deny them benefits?

Become a citizen then. Become one of us.

On the flip side, if I knew a British person who went to work in a bar in Spain in 1993 and made their life there, had kids there, maybe married a Spanish woman. And then the government there said "only citizens can claim benefits", and they moaned about it, I'd probably question why they hadn't become a Spanish citizen in that time. Like mate what are you doing? You've been there 33 years. It's your life now.

 

[zero]

Do EU citizens living in another EU country generally get to claim benefits on the same basis as citizens?

 

[AlterEgo]

Do EU citizens living in another EU country generally get to claim benefits on the same basis as citizens?

Yes.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Do EU citizens living in another EU country generally get to claim benefits on the same basis as citizens?

Yes.

The minimum residence requirements for benefits in EU countries apply to both citizens and non-citizens.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2026 ==

I note Reform UK on Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex County Councils have promised to overturn the Government's decisions on local government reorganisation by applying for a judicial review.

However Conservative controlled New Forest District Council has sought and received legal advice from a KC on this which is quoted in the following report to Cabinet for 3 June 2026. This does not provide any grounds for optimism that Reform UK will be able to deliver on their promises.

https://democracy.newforest.gov.uk/documents/s49384/LGR%20Srategic%20Approach%20report.pdf

Cabinet – 3 June 2026
Local Government Reorganisation – response to decision, petition, legal counsel advice and the Council’s strategic approach 2026-2028

On 25 March 2026, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government decided to proceed with local government reorganisation (LGR) in Hampshire and the Solent by implementing “Option 1A”, which takes the district’s current footprint into two new unitary councils from April 2028.
Following the decision, a local petition was commenced “Keep the New Forest Together”, objecting to the Government’s decision and asking this Council to seek legal advice on the prospects of a challenge by way of a judicial review. Having met the threshold for a Full Council debate, at the Full Council meeting on 13 April 2026, the petition was received and debated by the Council. Full Council, by unanimous resolution, noted the petition and agreed that the Leader and Cabinet should carefully consider it, alongside updated legal counsel advice before deciding the next steps to best represent the interests of the Forest. This acknowledged that the Council was already in active dialogue with legal counsel on potential grounds of challenge to the government decision.
Independent legal advice has now been received and further supplemented by a leading Kings Counsel (KC). In summary, advice concludes that a challenge would have no real prospects of success.
Advice emphasises how a judicial review operates: it is not an appeal on the merits of the decision and the court will not substitute its own judgement for that of the decision‑maker, particularly where decisions require judgement across complex factors.

 

[35B]

The minimum residence requirements for benefits in EU countries apply to both citizens and non-citizens.

For clarity, is that citizens of other EU member states or all states?

I would expect the former on the basis of freedom of movement. The latter, as EU legislation, would surprise me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2026 ==

I note Reform UK on Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex County Councils have promised to overturn the Government's decisions on local government reorganisation by applying for a judicial review.

However Conservative controlled New Forest District Council has sought and received legal advice from a KC on this which is quoted in the following report to Cabinet for 3 June 2026. This does not provide any grounds for optimism that Reform UK will be able to deliver on their promises.

Reform are doing from the right what activists from the left have been doing for many years, and using legal proceedings to pursue political objectives.

The inability of many to understand the difference between an examination of how a decision has been taken, and whether that process complied with what the law requires, on the one hand, and the merits of that decision on the other, is a common feature.

 

[weeklycommuter]

For clarity, is that citizens of other EU member states or all states?

I would expect the former on the basis of freedom of movement. The latter, as EU legislation, would surprise me.

It is a matter for each country whether to impose such a minimum residence requirement. The point is the EU allows member states to do this as long as it applies equally to all EU citizens.

 

[35B]

It is a matter for each country whether to impose such a minimum residence requirement. The point is the EU allows member states to do this as long as it applies equally to all EU citizens.

Thanks - that’s what I’d expected

 

[brad465]

In what world is this not incitement:

https://www.ft.com/content/1f9cf0bb-8e11-4808-a66b-08326d09d324?syn-25a6b1a6=1

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has called on the British public to respond with “pure cold rage” to the murder of an 18-year-old student, claiming that it was the result of white lives being treated as less important than those of ethnic minorities. “This is wrong. All the values and standards of living in a free country where everybody is judged equally before the law, have been trashed and thrown away,” Farage said in a video address on Tuesday morning, following the sentencing on Monday of the perpetrator for the murder of Henry Nowak in Southampton last year.

At least the weather is poor this week, had this been last week in the heatwave the police would have a right job on their hands.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In what world is this not incitement:

Depends what he's inciting. If it's a call for legitimate protest that doesn't seem unreasonable, but if it was a call for violence it would be a criminal offence. I suppose the grifters do like to leave that ambiguous knowing what their followers might often do, but this situation was a disgrace and must not be brushed under the carpet. It should absolutely be all over the Press, and an enquiry should be carried out to establish precisely what made them think the course of action taken was in any way sensible - it is quite possible that there are serious issues in the training that force gives, for instance, given that the immediate response to something like this is likely to be drilled-in to the point of instinct.

 

[JamesT]

In what world is this not incitement:

https://www.ft.com/content/1f9cf0bb-8e11-4808-a66b-08326d09d324?syn-25a6b1a6=1

At least the weather is poor this week, had this been last week in the heatwave the police would have a right job on their hands.

It's a world where

"They are disgusting Nazi fascists ... We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all," he said, running a finger across his throat.

is not incitement to violence.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-councillor-acquitted-over-cut-all-their-throats-speech-2025-08-15/

 

[brad465]

It's a world where

is not incitement to violence.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-councillor-acquitted-over-cut-all-their-throats-speech-2025-08-15/

Yes that should have been incitement too.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Depends what he's inciting. If it's a call for legitimate protest that doesn't seem unreasonable, but if it was a call for violence it would be a criminal offence.

What category does the man on the Clapham omnibus put "pure cold rage" in?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What category does the man on the Clapham omnibus put "pure cold rage" in?

There's not one answer to that.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Indeed, but this is the Farage MO. Use inflammatory language but no clarity on what he thinks that means, so that his followers interpret it as they see fit, and he has plausible deniability when there are riots. We saw it with Southport.

 

[Krokodil]

Indeed, but this is the Farage MO. Use inflammatory language but no clarity on what he thinks that means, so that his followers interpret it as they see fit, and he has plausible deniability when there are riots. We saw it with Southport.

A bit like Trump's "fight like hell"

 

[SuspectUsual]

A bit like Trump's "fight like hell"

Exactly like that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly like that.

Knowing how he works, it's likely an attempt at "rousing the troops" without in fact breaking the law. Though I genuinely don't think he wants violence - he wants pretty hefty protest against Labour. It's all about winning the next election.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Knowing how he works, it's likely an attempt at "rousing the troops" without in fact breaking the law. Though I genuinely don't think he wants violence - he wants pretty hefty protest against Labour. It's all about winning the next election.

He may not *want* violence, but if a protest turned violent I don’t think he’d be sorry. He’d just shrug and say “it shows the strength of feeling”

 

[Bletchleyite]

He may not *want* violence, but if a protest turned violent I don’t think he’d be sorry. He’d just shrug and say “it shows the strength of feeling”

In the end he's self serving. He just wants whatever will benefit him, i.e. to win the next election. So far as I can see he doesn't care what collateral damage arises as a result.

 

[dgl]

I was scrolling through YouTube shorts and got one from ole grifter about white lives matter and at least one pe rson was asking about the 5mil!
Of course this is all distraction tactics from Farage so we forget about his dodgy money and Russia links.

 

[BAFRA77]

He may not *want* violence, but if a protest turned violent I don’t think he’d be sorry. He’d just shrug and say “it shows the strength of feeling”

He's "only asking questions" though - remember that...

 

[Gloster]

He's "only asking questions" though - remember that...

But not, it appears, in the House of Commons. The BBC comment on him starts ‘Away from the Commons, Reform UK’s leader Nigel Farage echoes his earlier criticism…’ The background to the picture makes it look as though he is in a pub.