Independant Candidates are charged £5,000 to stand in the European Parliamentary Election. Is this fair?

No - It's undemocratic
84% (137 votes)
Yes - Politics is only for the rich
4% (7 votes)
My opinion makes no difference
12% (19 votes)
Total votes: 163

Comitment & Where Does The Money Goes?

Who charges? Where does that money go to? If it would be reimbursed after the elections I can understand that it is a way to prevent "too many" candidates from entering the race. I've been in a EU country where the size of the ballot form was so big you could hardly unfold it in the ballot box! This served the aim of some on the ballot: rediculazing the election process well. Of course is money is asked (reimbursable or not) this should be for every candidate: on a list or independent. For parties it can't be too hard to raise the cash and for individuals who have the pretension to be that popular they want to run for office it neither can be too hard to raise some cash amongst their supporters of the first hour IMO. Maybe the money can be used to fund projects supporting citizen's autonomy from politicians or for a watchdog organization safeguarding Human Rights in the West? The money then would only be reimbursed after the next elections, e.g. after 5 years. Candidates will have to think well before making a bit in the polls. If they go for it it would show they are committed and; if not being able them self to provide; they already have some popular support. In the end no one would loose out with such scheme.

REPLY - Apparently, the money goes to the treasury! I think it should be returned if the candidate has conducted themselves properly in the election process. Sohale. 

why is money dictating sovereign right to represent?

OR BE REPRESENTED!!

is it only me that feels the mammon-obsessed political class, have long lost touch with the people they are meant to represent?

also, representation is only possible by consent, or else its oppression.

In the UK, approx. 48% of eligible people dont vote, therefore they do not consent, and therefore are living, illegally, under a dictatorially oppressive state.

some might hark the hollow title of democracy, but where is the democratic balance and process? and where is the accountability for politicians, their actions and their behaviours?

it doesnt exist unfortunately. it is further hindered by these limitations to everyones access to the process' that dictate so much of their lives.

wakey, wakey people.

Legal is NOT lawful! any politician or policeman who attempts to tell you different is actually acting fraudulantly, and breaking a LAW.

they cant tell you this or else you'll know they rely heavily on CONSENT. dont give consent, they have no authority over you. YOU are sovereign, you are the only real power base. you are the reason your country of residence is wealthy, its your energy, and the energy of people like you, that build a collective energy, we call Bitain.

if this wasnt a heavily thought about process. why are we never taught any law or related matters in the school education system? we are taught all the rest of relevant subjects, that give us a well rounded knowledge by adulthood.

NOT LAW! why not law? what is so special about law, that they feel you dont need to know anything about it??

especially as lack of knowledge of legislation is NO excuse under these legislations, for you not to be charged and detained by these legislations. so your not taught about it, yet you MUST take responsibility under it?

its what keeps you working 5 or 6 days a week, while never getting ahead enough to be free from debt.

they use our neccesitys against us. they blackmail us with the things we need to live, ie, eat, drink, sleep and socialise; by making it almost impossible to survive outside the economic bubble they have created.

who pays for the bubble in the first world??

surely the death, starvations, pain, and sufferings of the 2nd and 3rd world economies and people pay. they unwillingly give their lives, to ensure the west is rich. is this not slavery?

which means for all the pains of slavery all the people experienced over all those years, we havent removed it, merely retitled and hid it out in the wide-open!

marga.productions@ntlworld.com

Re: Money to Treasury vs Returned

Yes, if a more complex structure isn't feasible (cf. suggestions in previous posting) then the money should indeed be returned to any candidate who conducted him/her self properly. It can be hard enough to raise the cash and surely the Treasury taking the money when a candidate doesn't get 2.5% of the votes is unreasonable. It's actually outrageous. A question here is what nowadays still is considered as "proper behavior" for citizens: should a candidate who is arrested during e.g. a protest against the war still get the money back? That question is not on the table: the Treasury takes the money and that's not gone change any soon we can think. IMO the money should always be returned. That appears to me the only fair way to go. The amount also should be better defined. Maybe something like: "For every candidate, on a party list or not, the amount of 3 times an average monthly wage in that constituency is asked to be returned within X months after the elections". --- Maybe make it "average national wage" and leave out the reference to the candidate's constituency to avoid that in richer areas only rich(er) candidates can easily run. Maybe local Councils should be allowed to lower the "fee", not to raise it above the amount set in the national rule. IH

We've all been conned by our

We've all been conned by our politicians but we'll get our own back at the ballot box.

£5000.00 charge

they are saying " we don't want your opinion thank you , but give me your money instead, so that we can increase our portfolio of properties! What a scam! ,

I just can't believe it. It's

I just can't believe it. It's a closed shop for the rich and well heeled. I hope you win Sohale.

Contact Sohale