Fury grows over Tory visa rules where ‘only the rich’ dare fall in love

[RayC]

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Well from this thread it seems some people feel that non British nationals are entitled to the same treatment as British nationals while in Britain.

 

You're correct. I'm one of them. Anything else is discrimination pure and simple. I've yet to read a convincing argument to justify any such discrimination.

 

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

They feel that non nationals are also entitled to permanent residency in Britain no matter what they bring to the table. 

 

In general -  there are exceptions - an individual needs to have been living in the UK legally for 5 years before being eligible to apply for permanent residency. Imo this length of time is about right.

 

Someone entering the country legally has either brought something to the table or is the partner/ child of someone who has. Assuming that the individual has not committed a serious crime, and that they still meet the same conditions, which led to their visa being granted in the first place, I don't see why their application for permanent residency should be refused. Only fair and just don't you think?

 

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes, as with every country. A minority of bad people is inevitable in every demographic. Just as you will get real racists and bigots, you will also get people who throw those labels at others simply because they have a different point of view to them and are unable to debate in a reasoned, civilized manner. 

 

I agree. However, a problem arises for supporters of this change in the law. Economic migrants fill jobs that, for whatever reason, cannot be filled by the local population. Can we agree on that? One estimate suggests that this bill will reduce immigration by 300,000 per annum. I believe that that there are +/-50,000 spousal views issued each year. Let's assume that the proposed new legislation reduces that number to zero. Doesn't this mean that there will 250,000 unfilled job vacancies? This cannot be 'good' from an economic standpoint and must therefore mean that the reduction in immigration numbers is intrinsically 'good' in itself.  And why is a drop in immigration numbers good in itself? I can't think of any other logical answer other than it is because the immigrant is perceived as being 'different' (inferior?). I'd call that racism (or xenophobia).

Edited December 12, 2023 by RayC
Clarification

[James105]

22 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I agree. However, a problem arises for supporters of this change in the law. Economic migrants fill jobs that, for whatever reason, cannot be filled by the local population. Can we agree on that? One estimate suggests that this bill will reduce immigration by 300,000 per annum. I believe that that there are +/-50,000 spousal views issued each year. Let's assume that the proposed new legislation reduces that number to zero. Doesn't this mean that there will 250,000 unfilled job vacancies? This cannot be 'good' from an economic standpoint and must therefore mean that the reduction in immigration numbers is intrinsically 'good' in itself.  And why is a drop in immigration numbers good in itself? I can't think of any other logical answer other than it is because the immigrant is perceived as being 'different' (inferior?). I'd call that racism (or xenophobia).

 

However did the UK cope in the 90s when net immigration was about 100,000 per year?  I don't recall any panic going on about needing an extra 350,000 people per year to plug the gaps.  When did the UK public vote for such high immigration numbers?  Has any party ever had this on their manifesto? 

[EastBayRay]

Seems you all think the uk is some kind of free for all for the people to take what they want.

 

im glad here in the states we at least pretend to take pride in our nation. Something wrong with those liberals in Britain they hate their own country of something??? Seems like American liberals hate them as well supporting all the damaging policies and folks messing up the place. They not happy with the damage they already did to my country ??

 

good luck to Britain man they gone need it with all those progressives trying to ruin the place 

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

 

However did the UK cope in the 90s when net immigration was about 100,000 per year?  I don't recall any panic going on about needing an extra 350,000 people per year to plug the gaps.  When did the UK public vote for such high immigration numbers?  Has any party ever had this on their manifesto? 

You've never heard of development, progression and aging workforce?

[RayC]

4 hours ago, James105 said:

 

However did the UK cope in the 90s when net immigration was about 100,000 per year?

 

Presumably there weren't as many job vacancies then and hence less need to import labour.

 

4 hours ago, James105 said:

  I don't recall any panic going on about needing an extra 350,000 people per year to plug the gaps. 

 

What does this figure of 350,000 relate to? I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

 

4 hours ago, James105 said:

 

When did the UK public vote for such high immigration numbers? 

 

The UK public cast their votes in a general election every 4 or 5 years to elect a government. The government then (broadly) determines how many migrants should be allowed into the country.

 

4 hours ago, James105 said:

 

Has any party ever had this on their manifesto? 

 

Yes. Immigration usually figures fairly prominently in the various party manifestos. The attached link gives an overview of the main parties' views on immigration in the 2019 election.

 

https://freemovement.org.uk/general-election-manifestos-2019/

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, James105 said:

 

However did the UK cope in the 90s when net immigration was about 100,000 per year?  I don't recall any panic going on about needing an extra 350,000 people per year to plug the gaps.  When did the UK public vote for such high immigration numbers?  Has any party ever had this on their manifesto? 

Well, you might ask yourself about the demographics of Britain back then. What percentage of the population was pensioners back in the 90s compared to now.

 

How many older people are there in the UK?
It is well known that the UK population is ageing, with more people living longer lives than previously. There are now over 15.5 million people aged 60 or over, making up 23% of the UK population.

The number of “older” old people is also rising. There are now 3.2 million people aged 80 or over, and almost 600,000 of these are aged 90 or over.

https://www.mha.org.uk/get-involved/policy-influencing/facts-stats/

 

Here's how much the median age has risen since 1950

https://www.statista.com/statistics/275394/median-age-of-the-population-in-the-united-kingdom/

Edited December 12, 2023 by placeholder

[JonnyF]

13 hours ago, RayC said:

You're correct. I'm one of them. Anything else is discrimination pure and simple. I've yet to read a convincing argument to justify any such discrimination.

 

I don't think any country in the world gives equal rights to non nationals compared to nationals. Why should they? Why should non nationals have access to the NHS for example, why should they have the right to remain indefinitely? Why should they have access to the social security system? It's completely nonsensical, any country that allowed such a policy would go bankrupt very quickly, perhaps that is what you would like to see so that you could blame it on Brexit or the Tories?

 

It's such a ridiculous notion I'm not even sure if you are serious.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well, you might ask yourself about the demographics of Britain back then. What percentage of the population was pensioners back in the 90s compared to now.

 

How many older people are there in the UK?
It is well known that the UK population is ageing, with more people living longer lives than previously. There are now over 15.5 million people aged 60 or over, making up 23% of the UK population.

The number of “older” old people is also rising. There are now 3.2 million people aged 80 or over, and almost 600,000 of these are aged 90 or over.

https://www.mha.org.uk/get-involved/policy-influencing/facts-stats/

 

Here's how much the median age has risen since 1950

https://www.statista.com/statistics/275394/median-age-of-the-population-in-the-united-kingdom/

I should have noted that this graph also includes a projection of how the population will age. Which actually makes immigration more of an imperative.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/11/2023 at 6:48 PM, brewsterbudgen said:

I predict that even this shameful, evil government will backtrack on this, or obfuscate so that it never actually goes through.  It's just a shameless attempt to try and stop Farage and the Reform Party decimating the Tories at next year's election.  

They could be just testing the water, or trying to divert attention from something, with no expectation of it passing into law.

Probably better than declaring war.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

You've never heard of development, progression and aging workforce?

Development, progression don't need an expanding workforce and AI robotics will make up for an aging workforce.

Mass immigration is a stupid idea and only causes division in society, though that may actually be the reason for it.

[VocalNeal]

On 12/10/2023 at 7:12 PM, billd766 said:

Just because he had a  good schooling and a good university education it does not mean that common sense  comes with it as a free gift.

 

Everyone in the UK gets access to free schooling. That some apply themselves better should not be the reason for derision

[RayC]

41 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I don't think any country in the world gives equal rights to non nationals compared to nationals. Why should they? Why should non nationals have access to the NHS for example, why should they have the right to remain indefinitely? Why should they have access to the social security system? It's completely nonsensical, any country that allowed such a policy would go bankrupt very quickly, perhaps that is what you would like to see so that you could blame it on Brexit or the Tories?

 

It's such a ridiculous notion I'm not even sure if you are serious.

 

 

You know that Brexit is a 'red rag to a bull' for me, so I'll get that out of the way quickly: Just how have things improved wrt controlling immigration since we left the EU? The UK jobs market seemed to work pretty efficiently when the free movement of EU nationals into the UK was permitted. 

 

Your original post to which I replied:

 

" ... it seems some people feel that non British nationals are entitled to the same treatment as British nationals while in Britain."

 

So you are in favour of treating migrant workers in the UK as effectively 2nd class residents? You would withhold NHS care, other benefits and future pension entitlements from them despite the fact that they will be paying tax and NI contributions in exactly the same way as a UK national? (I was so astonished that anyone could seriously suggest this that I had to check that migrants were not st a separate tax regime!). I imagine that you would also not permit a migrant's kids to attend school? 

 

I doubt that any G20 country discriminates against it's residents in this way; certainly no EU country does and none are bankrupt.

 

The only thing that is bankrupt is the morality of your ideas.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

You know that Brexit is a 'red rag to a bull' for me, so I'll get that out of the way quickly: Just how have things improved wrt controlling immigration since we left the EU? The UK jobs market seemed to work pretty efficiently when the free movement of EU nationals into the UK was permitted. 

 

Your original post to which I replied:

 

" ... it seems some people feel that non British nationals are entitled to the same treatment as British nationals while in Britain."

 

So you are in favour of treating migrant workers in the UK as effectively 2nd class residents? You would withhold NHS care, other benefits and future pension entitlements from them despite the fact that they will be paying tax and NI contributions in exactly the same way as a UK national? (I was so astonished that anyone could seriously suggest this that I had to check that migrants were not st a separate tax regime!). I imagine that you would also not permit a migrant's kids to attend school? 

 

I doubt that any G20 country discriminates against it's residents in this way; certainly no EU country does and none are bankrupt.

 

The only thing that is bankrupt is the morality of your ideas.

 

The Tories have really messed up on immigration, and it will probably cost them at the next election. That's how it works after Brexit, UK voters have the power to remove politicians that don't do their job or keep their promises. Try removing Von Der Leyen via the ballot box. We now have Democracy. Viva Brexit.  

 

Migrant workers should not have the same benefits as UK nationals until they become UK nationals. That's how it works. I have worked as a migrant worker in Australia and in Thailand and I didn't get (nor did I expect/demand) the same rights as Australian or Thai nationals while working in their countries. I never assumed I had the right to stay indefinitely. I never expected access to free healthcare or free schooling or free housing. I never expected benefits if I lost my job. They don't offer it to us, we don't offer it to them. That's fair. That's reciprocity. That's the way things work in the real world.

 

If you think a country that does such a thing is morally bankrupt, how can you possibly stay in Thailand? 

[James105]

13 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

You've never heard of development, progression and aging workforce?

 

Yes of course.   Is the UK just bringing in the type of migrants who do not age then and/or are we expecting them to return to their origin countries when they get older so that they do not also become part of a much larger problem down the road? 

 

The problem with Ponzi schemes like this is that it requires continuous feeding and at some point it will inevitably collapse, most likely taking the welfare and health system with it.   

[brewsterbudgen]

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The Tories have really messed up on immigration, and it will probably cost them at the next election. That's how it works after Brexit, UK voters have the power to remove politicians that don't do their job or keep their promises. Try removing Von Der Leyen via the ballot box. We now have Democracy. Viva Brexit.  

 

Migrant workers should not have the same benefits as UK nationals until they become UK nationals. That's how it works. I have worked as a migrant worker in Australia and in Thailand and I didn't get (nor did I expect/demand) the same rights as Australian or Thai nationals while working in their countries. I never assumed I had the right to stay indefinitely. I never expected access to free healthcare or free schooling or free housing. I never expected benefits if I lost my job. They don't offer it to us, we don't offer it to them. That's fair. That's reciprocity. That's the way things work in the real world.

 

If you think a country that does such a thing is morally bankrupt, how can you possibly stay in Thailand? 

 

This thread is not about migrant workers, it's about UK citizens being able to settle in the UK with a foreign spouse.

[youreavinalaff]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The Tories have really messed up on immigration, and it will probably cost them at the next election. That's how it works after Brexit, UK voters have the power to remove politicians that don't do their job or keep their promises. Try removing Von Der Leyen via the ballot box. We now have Democracy. Viva Brexit.  

 

Migrant workers should not have the same benefits as UK nationals until they become UK nationals. That's how it works. I have worked as a migrant worker in Australia and in Thailand and I didn't get (nor did I expect/demand) the same rights as Australian or Thai nationals while working in their countries. I never assumed I had the right to stay indefinitely. I never expected access to free healthcare or free schooling or free housing. I never expected benefits if I lost my job. They don't offer it to us, we don't offer it to them. That's fair. That's reciprocity. That's the way things work in the real world.

 

If you think a country that does such a thing is morally bankrupt, how can you possibly stay in Thailand? 

Working in Thailand entitles you to join the social security scheme. In Thailand, free healthcare is available to foreigners. Kids of foreigners can get free education. Unemployment benefit is, aso available to foreigners.

[NONG CHOK]

You may see more pressure on the Torys if election days were on a Saturday and make voting compulsory. This is would really play havoc with the Torys as their majority would be severely reduced. No worker is going to take a day off work and vote for the opposition.

[youreavinalaff]

10 minutes ago, NONG CHOK said:

You may see more pressure on the Torys if election days were on a Saturday and make voting compulsory. This is would really play havoc with the Torys as their majority would be severely reduced. No worker is going to take a day off work and vote for the opposition.

How many people work 15 hours a day?

[RayC]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The Tories have really messed up on immigration, and it will probably cost them at the next election. That's how it works after Brexit, UK voters have the power to remove politicians that don't do their job or keep their promises. Try removing Von Der Leyen via the ballot box. We now have Democracy. Viva Brexit.  

 

 

Try removing the 783 sitting members of the House of Lords!

 

You are obviously ignorant of the way in which the president of the European Commission (PEC) is elected, therefore I'll lay out the process so that you can refer to it in the future: The PEC serves a 5-year term. S/he is nominated by the European Council, which is the group comprising of the Heads of government of the member states (all of whom have been elected democratically). This nominee is then either endorsed or rejected by the European Parliament, whose members are directly elected by the public in the member states.

 

It is untrue that the PEC cannot be removed as you infer. The European Parliament has this power and would have used it in 1999 if Jacques Santner had not pre-empted them and resigned.

 

The UK had democracy when we were a member of the EU. Imo it's no coincidence that since Brexit the Tory party has, on a number of occasions, attempted to circumvent our democratic institutions. Fortunately, these attempts have been unsuccessful up to now.

[JonnyF]

30 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Try removing the 783 sitting members of the House of Lords!

 

Yes, that is next on the agenda, along with removing ourselves from the ECHR. 

 

30 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

You are obviously ignorant of the way in which the president of the European Commission (PEC) is elected, therefore I'll lay out the process so that you can refer to it in the future: The PEC serves a 5-year term. S/he is nominated by the European Council, which is the group comprising of the Heads of government of the member states (all of whom have been elected democratically). This nominee is then either endorsed or rejected by the European Parliament, whose members are directly elected by the public in the member states.

 

I understand how it works thanks. Designed so that there are several layers between the voters and the PEC. About as far from direct democracy as one could imagine. We never voted for anyone with any real power, we only voted for the member of European Parliament (who themselves have very limited powers by design). Thank god it's not our problem any more thanks to a real demonstration of direct Democracy known as the Brexit referendum. 

 

30 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

It is untrue that the PEC cannot be removed as you infer. The European Parliament has this power and would have used it in 1999 if Jacques Santner had not pre-empted them and resigned.

 

The UK had democracy when we were a member of the EU. Imo it's no coincidence that since Brexit the Tory party has, on a number of occasions, attempted to circumvent our democratic institutions. Fortunately, these attempts have been unsuccessful up to now.

 

Voters don't vote for the PEC. They vote for people who are able to reject someone else's nomination. Once again, limited powers and several layers between the man on the street and the people making the real decisions. Just how they like it. Thank goodness we left, I can only hope we put more distance between ourselves and that failing federalist technocracy. 

[RayC]

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Migrant workers should not have the same benefits as UK nationals until they become UK nationals. That's how it works.

 

It takes 5+ years to become a UK national. So before that happens, would you withhold access to the NHS for a migrant and his/her family? Deny the kids access to education? Etc.

 

Fortunately, that is not how it works in the UK and I don't believe that even the most right-wing member of the Flat Earth Brigade is proposing it.

 

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I have worked as a migrant worker in Australia and in Thailand and I didn't get (nor did I expect/demand) the same rights as Australian or Thai nationals while working in their countries.

 

Youravingalaff has already corrected you regarding the Thai system -  which I would have thought you might have known given that you work here - so I'll just concentrate on correcting you re Australia.

 

You don't say when, or what type of migrant worker, you were in Australia, but if you are migrant worker in Australia today, you enjoy the same rights as a native-born worker. The exception is if you are on one of the short-stay working visas, which are usually granted for stays of up to 3 months (and no more than 12 months). Here, the individual has to arrange his/her own medical insurance. Not the most outrageous example of discrimination imo. (It is extremely unlikely that individuals under these types of visa would want to bring their families with them so, again, not really a problem worth worrying about).

 

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I never assumed I had the right to stay indefinitely. I never expected access to free healthcare or free schooling or free housing. I never expected benefits if I lost my job. They don't offer it to us, we don't offer it to them. That's fair. That's reciprocity. That's the way things work in the real world.

If the world worked as you suggest then nothing would ever get started.

 

I find your 'philosophy of life' outlined above sad. Of course, that is just my opinion.

 

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

If you think a country that does such a thing is morally bankrupt, how can you possibly stay in Thailand? 

 

I have not lived in Thailand since the '90s. We live in the UK - at least for the time being - and spend European winters in Thailand.

 

No country is perfect. I have no intention of going to live on a deserted island, so some compromise on some things is necessary.

 

You are very open about your prejudice and discrimination towards migrants. I am curious why this is? Is it due to racism and/or xenophobia? A superiority complex (based on nationality?)? Something else?

 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes, that is next on the agenda, along with removing ourselves from the ECHR. 

 

 

'Reform of the Lords' next on the agenda? I don't suppose you have any evidence to support that claim?

 

The only other European countries outside the ECHR are Belarus and Russia. Sometimes you can tell a lot about someone by the company that they keep.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Designed so that there are several layers between the voters and the PEC. About as far from direct democracy as one could imagine. We never voted for anyone with any real power, we only voted for the member of European Parliament (who themselves have very limited powers by design). Thank god it's not our problem any more thanks to a real demonstration of direct Democracy known as the Brexit referendum. 

 

Voters don't vote for the PEC. They vote for people who are able to reject someone else's nomination. Once again, limited powers and several layers between the man on the street and the people making the real decisions. Just how they like it. Thank goodness we left, I can only hope we put more distance between ourselves and that failing federalist technocracy. 

 

There are problems in making an organisation representing 27 member states comprising 450 million people more accountable to the electorate. There will never be a perfect system. Imo the transfer of some of the responsibilities of the Commission e.g. the ability to propose legislation would be a start.

 

I would prefer that the Commissioners or, at least, the PEC were directly elected. The problem then is a lack of knowledge of the individuals concerned. For example, very few people outside of Germany had any idea who v.d Leyden was. That said, the majority of the UK electorate couldn't tell you who their local MP was but they still vote.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Migrant workers should not have the same benefits as UK nationals until they become UK nationals.

That's something I fundamentally disagree with. Just working should not entitle anyone to a passport. I worked in Saudi as a "guest worker". I had no expectation that had I stayed long enough I would get citizenship.

By all means bring workers in, pay them properly, look after them while in the country, and after the job ends, or they reach retirement age, send them back home.

Happens in many countries ( will israel give citizenship to any of their "guest workers"? ), so why should Britain be different?

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

How many people work 15 hours a day?

I worked a 12 hour day, and with breaks and unpaid overtime added it was as much as 13.5 hours. Add travel time and easily 15 hours.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, James105 said:

 Is the UK just bringing in the type of migrants who do not age then and/or are we expecting them to return to their origin countries when they get older so that they do not also become part of a much larger problem down the road? 

That's what many countries do, Saudi and israel for example.

[JonnyF]

17 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Working in Thailand entitles you to join the social security scheme. In Thailand, free healthcare is available to foreigners. Kids of foreigners can get free education. Unemployment benefit is, aso available to foreigners.

 

While some of that is true, try getting into a national park and you get charged 10x or 20x the rate even when you show a work permit or driving licence. I am also paying more income tax than my Thai colleagues (until I get my LTR visa) and I am unable to buy land. Private hospitals charge more for foreigners and the Thai courts back up that decision as shown in the link below.

 

https://thethaiger.com/news/national/court-rules-for-health-ministry-calls-dual-pricing-beneficial

 

To pretend that I have the same rights as a Thai national in Thailand is laughable. 

[JonnyF]

12 hours ago, RayC said:

 

It takes 5+ years to become a UK national. So before that happens, would you withhold access to the NHS for a migrant and his/her family? Deny the kids access to education? Etc.

 

Fortunately, that is not how it works in the UK and I don't believe that even the most right-wing member of the Flat Earth Brigade is proposing it.

 

 

Youravingalaff has already corrected you regarding the Thai system -  which I would have thought you might have known given that you work here - so I'll just concentrate on correcting you re Australia.

 

Just corrected him with multiple examples of foreigners not being treated equally in Thailand.

 

12 hours ago, RayC said:

 

You don't say when, or what type of migrant worker, you were in Australia, but if you are migrant worker in Australia today, you enjoy the same rights as a native-born worker. The exception is if you are on one of the short-stay working visas, which are usually granted for stays of up to 3 months (and no more than 12 months). Here, the individual has to arrange his/her own medical insurance. Not the most outrageous example of discrimination imo. (It is extremely unlikely that individuals under these types of visa would want to bring their families with them so, again, not really a problem worth worrying about).

 

So they are not treated equally then. Just as I said. 

 

12 hours ago, RayC said:

 

If the world worked as you suggest then nothing would ever get started.

 

I find your 'philosophy of life' outlined above sad. Of course, that is just my opinion.

 

 

I have not lived in Thailand since the '90s. We live in the UK - at least for the time being - and spend European winters in Thailand.

 

No country is perfect. I have no intention of going to live on a deserted island, so some compromise on some things is necessary.

 

Yet you focus on the UK and try unsuccessfully to give Thailand and Australia (and most other countries) a free pass. Why do you hate your own country so much? Projection?

 

12 hours ago, RayC said:

 

You are very open about your prejudice and discrimination towards migrants. I am curious why this is? Is it due to racism and/or xenophobia? A superiority complex (based on nationality?)? Something else?

 

 

Something else. I believe that UK citizens who have paid into the system their whole lives should be given preferential treatment to immigrants who just arrived, often illegally. When I see ex-servicemen sleeping on the streets, or hear of OAP's freezing to death because they can't afford to heat their homes and then I see illegal immigrants gloating on social media about their free hotel room, I feel a great sense of injustice. As for your race baiting, it demeans you, you can do better than that Ray. 

[JonnyF]

12 hours ago, RayC said:

 

There are problems in making an organisation representing 27 member states comprising 450 million people more accountable to the electorate. There will never be a perfect system. Imo the transfer of some of the responsibilities of the Commission e.g. the ability to propose legislation would be a start.

 

Yes it is extremely difficult even if there was a will in the EU to do it, which there isn't. They like it just the way it is, it suits the Technocrats down to the ground. One of many reasons I am opposed to the federalization of Europe. 

 

12 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I would prefer that the Commissioners or, at least, the PEC were directly elected. The problem then is a lack of knowledge of the individuals concerned. For example, very few people outside of Germany had any idea who v.d Leyden was. That said, the majority of the UK electorate couldn't tell you who their local MP was but they still vote.

 

They could easily inform the public who the candidates were. The current system is a joke. The Parliamentarians that are voted for by the people have very little power. They (or actually the people a layer above them) are essentially given a candidate and they can reject it if they like. Then what? It's like voting for someone (let's call them Mike) to go to a restaurant with colleagues to represent you and Mike is a vegan. Mike is not allowed to speak to the chef as the chef is sat in the VIP section and Mike is in the cheap seats, but Mike's superior can. They bring steak and Mike's superior rejects it. They bring chicken it's rejected. They bring fish it's rejected, then pork etc. Finally they say to Mike's superior well we gave you 4 options and you rejected them all, we can't be fairer than that. So Mike asks for the menu and they reply "Menu? What menu? We already gave your superior what we consider to be the best 4 choices now ask your superior to choose one or go hungry". What a great system. I'm so glad I have Mike to represent me, he's clearly in a position of power.  Democracy. EU style. 

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes it is extremely difficult even if there was a will in the EU to do it, which there isn't. They like it just the way it is, it suits the Technocrats down to the ground. One of many reasons I am opposed to the federalization of Europe. 

 

 

They could easily inform the public who the candidates were. The current system is a joke. The Parliamentarians that are voted for by the people have very little power. They (or actually the people a layer above them) are essentially given a candidate and they can reject it if they like. Then what? It's like voting for someone (let's call them Mike) to go to a restaurant with colleagues to represent you and Mike is a vegan. Mike is not allowed to speak to the chef as the chef is sat in the VIP section and Mike is in the cheap seats, but Mike's superior can. They bring steak and Mike's superior rejects it. They bring chicken it's rejected. They bring fish it's rejected, then pork etc. Finally they say to Mike's superior well we gave you 4 options and you rejected them all, we can't be fairer than that. So Mike asks for the menu and they reply "Menu? What menu? We already gave your superior what we consider to be the best 4 choices now ask your superior to choose one or go hungry". What a great system. I'm so glad I have Mike to represent me, he's clearly in a position of power.  Democracy. EU style. 

I would say it's too early to drink, apparently you thought otherwise.