We increasingly accept that one generation should not deplete environmental capital for the next. Yet we rarely discuss whether there is such a thing as civic capital, and whether we have a duty to preserve it. This article does not argue that Brexit was right or wrong, nor that any citizenship arrangement should be restored. It asks a bigger question:

If citizenship carries rights, freedoms and opportunities that can be passed between generations, should we think about it differently?

For most people, citizenship is little more than a passport in a drawer that appears once or twice a year. Yet citizenship is one of the most important legal statuses a person can hold. It shapes where we can live, work, study, retire and build a future. The rights and freedoms associated with citizenship can change over time. While citizenship might remain unchanged, the inheritance attached to it might not. Since Brexit, many Britons have become more aware of the value of citizenship and the opportunities it can provide. Some have explored family histories in search of an Irish, German, Italian or other European connection. In doing so, many made an interesting discovery.

Citizenship is not merely something we possess. It is also something we inherit ⁽²⁾. That discovery raises a broader question that extends far beyond Brexit. Should citizenship be viewed as a form of inherited capital?

Most discussions of inheritance focus on money, land, business, and wealth. Yet financial inheritance is not the only inheritance people receive. Citizenship is valuable and carries rights, freedoms, and opportunities. These values influence where we live and work, the education we can access, and the opportunities we may pass to future generations. Viewed through this lens, citizenship begins to look less like a legal status and more like a form of inherited civic capital ⁽⁴⁾. If that is true, it raises another question. Do current generations have any responsibility to preserve that civic capital for future generations?

Modern societies increasingly recognise intergenerational obligations in other areas. We discuss environmental sustainability because we accept that one generation should not consume resources in ways that damage the prospects of those who come after us. We worry about public debt because future taxpayers may bear the consequences of decisions made today. Why do we rarely ask similar questions about citizenship and civic opportunity?

Brexit provides an interesting case study. Before Brexit, British citizenship automatically bestowed EU citizenship, allowing freedom of movement across much of Europe. Those opportunities formed part of the inheritance attached to British citizenship. The European Court of Justice frequently described EU citizenship as a “fundamental status” of Member State nationals ⁽³⁾. After Brexit, British citizenship remained, but the inheritance attached to it changed. Future generations of British citizens now inherit a different, and arguably smaller, set of opportunities than previous generations. They inherit British citizenship, but not the European citizenship rights that once accompanied it.

The deeper question is whether democracies should consider the intergenerational effects of major constitutional decisions more carefully. When governments increase borrowing, we ask whether it is fair to leave the bill to future generations. When governments change inheritance taxes, we ask whether it is fair to reduce what future generations might otherwise receive. Should we ask similar questions when constitutional decisions alter the opportunities attached to citizenship?

Can one generation legitimately diminish the civic inheritance that future generations would otherwise have received? This does not mean that democracies cannot change, as the rights attached to citizenship have always evolved. Voting rights changed, empires fell, free movement arrangements have been created and removed, and governments altered the benefits and obligations associated with citizenship. The question is whether decisions that permanently reduce rights and opportunities attached to citizenship should require stronger justification than ordinary political choices.

If citizenship is a form of inherited civic capital, perhaps future generations deserve greater consideration before that capital is diminished on their behalf. This line of inquiry is becoming increasingly relevant around the world. In the United States, birthright citizenship has become politically contested. Debates over who should automatically obtain citizenship at birth highlight a broader question: should citizenship remain an inherited right, or one that is conditional? Other debates are happening across Europe. They demonstrate that citizenship is not just a legal status but a social and political asset ⁽¹⁾.

Increasing numbers of people now hold more than one citizenship, often through ancestry, marriage, or migration. For some, a second citizenship is a recognition of heritage. For others, it is a source of security, mobility, and opportunity. Acceptance of dual citizenship has expanded considerably across the world over recent decades ⁽⁵⁾. These developments raise tough questions about equality, opportunity and the responsibilities that accompany citizenship.

Is it fair that some people can inherit multiple citizenships while others inherit only one?
Should citizenship be viewed as a privilege, a right, an asset, or something else entirely?
Should taxation follow citizenship, residence, or both?
Do future generations have any claim to the opportunities enjoyed by previous generations?

There are no straightforward answers, but the question is important.

Perhaps citizenship is more than a legal status. Perhaps it is a form of inherited civic capital, passed from one generation to the next, carrying opportunities that can shape lives long into the future. If so, decisions about citizenship are not only about the citizens of today. They are also about those who will inherit the consequences tomorrow.

Questions of identity, mobility, nationality, and belonging are increasingly debated across the world. Yet the most important question is what we are entitled to pass on to those who come after us. That is a conversation worth having.