Do you know why this is the case? (Legislative history, or fasttracking the process?)
Seems to me (and I'm making this up right now, didnt research) like if you try to set up a political union, where people are supposed to see each other as equals, it would be counter productive to expose them to "extensive background checks - to find out if their relationship status was genuine" if they wanted to bring their spouse or family over.
To get rid of the notion, that you - the serve, ask the british state to grant your familiy right of residency - and make it a less formal process. So yes, in a sense political unification seems like the driver behind this, I'd think.
That others would then still be stuck in the conventional system, and have to pay fees might be seen as somethig like a wilful oversight.
I dont think the intention of the law was to demean or financially harm the people that get ranked back (or on the flipside, financially better europeans). I think that that would be an outcome that people glanced over (newer regulation not completely replacing older one - and causing problems in implementation).
I don't think any european would feel 'better' than a UK citizen, because they got fasttracked in the process, and didn't have to pay that one time fee. But thats me.
The point I tried to make is, that - stuff like that should not be applicable to services like social security (money equivalent benefits),which would be a huge cause for upset in any country - and is often used colloquially by the populist right to stir the pot. ("Those migrants get more than you do.") If stuff like that would verifyably be true (apart from lets say charity (donated clothing, ..) ), you could close down society tomorrow - as enough people would be angry enough to cause an uproar. So those in general are popular myths - as I've come to understand them.
Your example doesnt seem to be that. Its probably bad law making. (The downranking part at least (in the least?) seems ill conceived to me..) I dont see malice. Yet I guess, yes, structural discrimination could be argued.
Seems to me (and I'm making this up right now, didnt research) like if you try to set up a political union, where people are supposed to see each other as equals, it would be counter productive to expose them to "extensive background checks - to find out if their relationship status was genuine" if they wanted to bring their spouse or family over.
To get rid of the notion, that you - the serve, ask the british state to grant your familiy right of residency - and make it a less formal process. So yes, in a sense political unification seems like the driver behind this, I'd think.
That others would then still be stuck in the conventional system, and have to pay fees might be seen as somethig like a wilful oversight.
I dont think the intention of the law was to demean or financially harm the people that get ranked back (or on the flipside, financially better europeans). I think that that would be an outcome that people glanced over (newer regulation not completely replacing older one - and causing problems in implementation).
I don't think any european would feel 'better' than a UK citizen, because they got fasttracked in the process, and didn't have to pay that one time fee. But thats me.
The point I tried to make is, that - stuff like that should not be applicable to services like social security (money equivalent benefits),which would be a huge cause for upset in any country - and is often used colloquially by the populist right to stir the pot. ("Those migrants get more than you do.") If stuff like that would verifyably be true (apart from lets say charity (donated clothing, ..) ), you could close down society tomorrow - as enough people would be angry enough to cause an uproar. So those in general are popular myths - as I've come to understand them.
Your example doesnt seem to be that. Its probably bad law making. (The downranking part at least (in the least?) seems ill conceived to me..) I dont see malice. Yet I guess, yes, structural discrimination could be argued.
Last edited by notimp,