Actually I'd say the general problem is they pay too much attention to the ideas and views of the MPs - and that's the root of screwups.

MPs in general are egotistical middle manager types, promoted past their level of competence (I know you've met that type before). They are all about "I want to see this happen", but oblivious to how to make that happen, or even if it makes any sense at all. As you will know, with that type you either try to keep them away from anything dangerous, humour them, and feed them bulls*t; or you listen and run around trying to make it happen within the bounds of the possible, even if it is damn stoopid.

On immigration, the terms are set by laws that the bozos themselves set; free movement in the EU, spouses and family joining migrants, etc. that make headline figures targets not only ludicrous, but also counterproductive.

And a key point that I don't think people have picked up on. Migration of younger working families to the UK is a matter of policy. As the existing population ages and demographics of working age people declines, how are you going to pay for those pensions, health services, etc. ? Getting young families and kids into the country is a matter of policy to try and make it possible for those grannies to not starve and the current account budget not go even further into the red.

UK population: how will it change over the next few decades? | News | The Guardian

Have you any idea how legislation is processed in the EU?

They even coined a word for it : comitology. Laws are drafted in back room committees by unelected bureacrats and sent to the European parliament for approval. MEPs vote on them but something like 3/4 are not seriously debated but are passed on the nod. There are tens of thousands of pages most of which go unperused. On the odd occasion that something is voted down, a few trivial changes can be made until they vote the right way. The EU has form on the voting front, of course. Effectively, MEPs wield little power.

Actually, that was the case until recently. It's pretty obscure but they were forced to slightly change the fundamentally undemocratic system fairly recently IIRC. Plus ca change though, looking at the way it works.

Not trying to bully you at all, brother. Just that ONS migration data clearly shows the truth: that each and every year the net migration from outside the EU is greater than the number of people coming in from the EU itself.

Why have you given up focusing on annual migration statistics? What you seem to be doing now is digging in people's history, looking at those who have possibly lived here since WWII, etc. Because pure logic should tell you that if there are more people coming in each year from outside the EU then if there are more people with European roots actually in the UK then they've been here a long, long while...

Heck, your data would actually make me really happy but in reality I have never been anywhere in the UK where I could feel that the majority of people around me are Europeans (not counting British folk). I do get that lovely feeling when walking up the high street in Bournemouth and hearing several different European languages spoken along the way, but I do realise they are mostly students who are only visiting, who will then return and set up their lives elsewhere.

But I have been to places in the UK where I can ABSOLUTELY assure you that it did feel like non-Europeans made up the majority. And I mean the MAJORITY, even if you were to combine all Europeans including locals.

Actually the system works really well because it's designed to be efficient. Just look again and how things flow in the EU and then compare to most national governments and the chaos that often ensues.

I think you've got things mixed up a bit in term of the mechanics. It's the EU parliament that gives final approval to European Commission members. And parliament is part of the legislative process, only that the Commission members that they approve are responsible for initiating legislation (though it still has to pass a vote, right?).

And you're complaining just because your local MEP can't whip up something and put it to a vote bypassing the legislative process currently in place? Wow...

On a side note, why would you be lobbying your MEP to pass EU-wide legislation (technically you could but the MEP is part of a broader coalition so it would have to make sense for the legislation to apply across the continent)? Have you ever even lobbied your local MP in the UK to get local legislation passed? Or is this just a case of "I'm going to whine about not being able to do something even though I don't want to do anyway" type situation?

Yes one could think that except the same ONS also states:

"The number of usual residents in the UK that held EU nationality (excluding British) was higher than those that held non-EU nationality (2,938,000 compared to 2,406,000) for the second year in a row – prior to 2013 this had not occurred since the Annual Population Survey began in 2004".

Now if it is the first time EU nationals out numbered non EU nationals since 2004 it cannot be that
"each and every year the net migration from outside the EU is greater than the number of people coming in from the EU itself."

I must be missing it but the only person I can find using that term (parasites) is you

There was a comment about non-EEA migrants taking more out of the system than they put in but I do think that those figures are pre 2012 - which goes some way to explain why the rules were changed possibly.

Post 18

Thanks Bix - I did think it was unusual.

Sorry SoS, I missed it - I know how difficult it is now for UK citizens to take their non-EEA spouses / family to the UK and no way are they abusing the system. In fact, I don't think many migrants do but it's always those that do that make the headlines

Democratic trumps efficient.

Consider the process for that.
The European Parliament gets a vote on the president in an election with 1 candidate who is proposed by the European Council. They then get to vote on whether to accept either all or none of the other 27 proposed commission members selected by the president from candidates suggested by the EU countries. No matter how efficient that is, it means that 28 people are appointed to positions of immense power (where they are the only people able to propose European legislation) without being elected to those positions by the population at large. Further, ordinary citizens cannot even put forward candidates they would like to see in those positions. That is not what I call democracy.

"Whip up" is just stirring the pot, but yes, I am complaining because the legislative process currently in place is designed to prevent the electorate or their elected representatives having any input into what legislation is even proposed .

Why not?
Are you saying that having legislation apply across the continent can never make sense? (So there is no need for EU legislation?). Or are you saying only 28 people in the whole of Europe are capable of originating sensible legislative ideas? Or something else? Sorry, I don't understand your point here, but I suspect it is an important issue, not a side note.

Well now here's the thing, ignoring the fact that I don't have a "local MP in the UK". I believe that democratic processes, by their very presence, improve society regardless of whether and how often a particular individual uses them. There are many things (for example: the right to a fair trial, votes for women, cancer treatment on the NHS, the right to stand for parliament ...) which I hope I will never personally use, but which I support because they improve society for everyone, even those who have not personally used them in the past.

Unlike yourself of course? What is it with the British that makes them think that the nation are just a collection of lazy bastards... apart from themselves?

....Bloody whinging Poms

Same reason EVERYONE hates tailgaters, but NO-ONE tailgates haha

Oh I would say that the EU makes more sensible legislation than most national governments I can think of. And in contrast to the US it's nowhere near as easy to "lobby" politicians for laws which are solely aimed at protecting the interests of such "contributors."

The ideas come from far and wide but are are simply initiated by the Commission members who have been given backing from the European Parliament. It's obviously not just these people who come up with stuff.

Just look at the way they tackled the telecommunications industry and how European consumers - including ourselves naturally - were getting plundered in broad daylight like there was no tomorrow.: blink:

Look at the airline industry and how carriers used to previously be able to oversell seats, have delays or announce cancellations without breaking much of a sweat. And look at them today and how they are now legally accountable for significant compensation on flights involving the EU. Has the rest of the world been able to implement something similar to protect consumers? Australia, the US? Not yet?

.

The EU is not working. No growth, decision making that is divorced from the people, unemployment, over-regulation and no answers to the problems it is facing, I can go on and on. Britain should have some faith in itself to do better outside the EU than inside.