Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Swiss immigration
-
10-02-2014 10:50am#1http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/swiss-referendum-immigration-quotas
So the Swiss voters have narrowly decided to vote for measures to curb EU immigration. The move has worried the EU.
A most important vote, which has ramifications for the whole of the EU.
Right choice in my opinion, but the EU is putting unnecessary pressure on states with it's immigration policy. I suspect it will negatively affect the Swiss economy.
Europe's economies are far too divergent for such free movement of people.
Discuss.0
Comments
-
Sick of the open policy on immigration. Allow immigration yes but to have no regulation is insane.
I am sure the same people that want light touch regulation for the banks, want light touch or no regulation on immigration as well.0 -
Sick of the open policy on immigration. Allow immigration yes but to have no regulation is insane.
I am sure the same people that want light touch regulation for the banks, want light touch or no regulation on immigration as well.
And you'd be wrong, since I'm in favour of very strong and intrusive regulation for banks (I really can't see any argument against it), but can't see why we have any need for little national labour pools.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Sick of the open policy on immigration. Allow immigration yes but to have no regulation is insane.
I am sure the same people that want light touch regulation for the banks, want light touch or no regulation on immigration as well.
There is regulation. Contrary to popular belief free movement of persons is not an open unfettered political right. It is a economic right its free movement of workers. There can be and are restrictions on free movement of students and other non economically active peoples like retired persons.
States are well within their rights to refuse entry or exclude persons and their family members on certain grounds.
Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but did agree to free movement in 2002 by agreement with the EU and its member states. Under that agreement Switzerland could pull out if that agreement as could the EU. This may or may not be something that Switzerland regrets in the future, time will tell.0 -
What this Swiss poll shows is that Switzerland is a sovereign country, and a country which respects the rule of democracy. In Switzerland, at least, the people are sovereign and the government serves the people.
Elsewhere, as we have seen, the people are there to serve the government. For example, if the people vote the way the government don’t like, then the government either makes them vote again until they vote the “correct” way, or else the government simply gets what it wants in another way.
Interestingly, the Swiss decision will have major consequences for the referendum debate in the UK.
Sovereignty matters, except to those who are slaves to the EU, and are prepared to give up others sovereignty for their idealism. Sovereignty matters as we have seen, for example, many countries who gave up their national currencies and are now forced into the straightjacket of the Euro, their economies strangled, their people either unemployed or forced into emigration.
AS opinion poll after opinion poll shows, the balance of opinion is moving back to the nation states in Europe, and away from the one size fits all EU model. As we have too often seen, for example in the Ukraine, the EU is often simply unfit for purpose.
In 50 years time, I suspect, many will look back at the EU project and wonder how so many people could be fooled into ceding sovereignty and democratic transparency and accountability to a supra national institution. For more and more people across Europe, the EU is no longer the answer and is all too frequently the problem.0 -
All I can say is well done to the Swiss should be happening here also, the situation is laughable at present.0
-
Advertisement
-
Probably, although why is another thing. Probably by people who have little or no understanding of Swiss politics.Interestingly, the Swiss decision will have major consequences for the referendum debate in the UK.
The entire initiative (that's the closest English word to it, as it actually wasn't a referendum) has caused a bit of of an embarrassment to the Swiss government and even the SVP who initiated it in the first place.
To begin with, the Swiss also voted to agree to freedom of movement with the EU, so this triumph of democracy is essentially the same as any of us signing a contract, changing our minds later and then reneging on it. Calling it democracy won't change that fact. As a result, there's going to be consequences to this, just the same as there would be if any nation just decides to break a treaty.
Chances are though, is they'll find a compromise. The Swiss government (which is not SVP run) has three years to find a way to avoid a diplomatic mess - to regain some tiny, even nominal, measure of imposing quotas on EU migration (thus satisfying the democratic decision), without actually making any serious difference to the status quo. Meanwhile, the SVP won't kick up too much as they're already distancing themselves (according to the Neue Zürcher Zeitung) from the result - unfortunately for them, they get most of their funding from the banks, who are not at all pleased with the idea of having to pay higher wages again for their workers.
In the end the whole thing was as much a protest vote against the government's inaction on the issue over the last few years. Immigration is a big issue in Switzerland - in particular immigration from those EU countries nearest - Germany (to a much lesser extent Austria), France, Italy - because they can speak the national languages and can cross over and be on an equal footing with the Swiss.
End result? Most probably that this vote will cause the greatest political reverberations in the campaigns of eurosceptic groups in other counties, by people who've probably never even been to Switzerland, let alone understand anything about her politics.
Meanwhile, expect the EU and Switzerland to engage in months of veiled threats, brinkmanship and negotiations before reaching a compromise that makes only minor or nominal changes and maintains the status quo.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Probably, although why is another thing. Probably by people who have little or no understanding of Swiss politics.
The entire initiative (that's the closest English word to it, as it actually wasn't a referendum) has caused a bit of of an embarrassment to the Swiss government and even the SVP who initiated it in the first place.
To begin with, the Swiss also voted to agree to freedom of movement with the EU, so this triumph of democracy is essentially the same as any of us signing a contract, changing our minds later and then reneging on it. Calling it democracy won't change that fact. As a result, there's going to be consequences to this, just the same as there would be if any nation just decides to break a treaty.
Chances are though, is they'll find a compromise. The Swiss government (which is not SVP run) has three years to find a way to avoid a diplomatic mess - to regain some tiny, even nominal, measure of imposing quotas on EU migration (thus satisfying the democratic decision), without actually making any serious difference to the status quo. Meanwhile, the SVP won't kick up too much as they're already distancing themselves (according to the Neue Zürcher Zeitung) from the result - unfortunately for them, they get most of their funding from the banks, who are not at all pleased with the idea of having to pay higher wages again for their workers.
In the end the whole thing was as much a protest vote against the government's inaction on the issue over the last few years. Immigration is a big issue in Switzerland - in particular immigration from those EU countries nearest - Germany (to a much lesser extent Austria), France, Italy - because they can speak the national languages and can cross over and be on an equal footing with the Swiss.
End result? Most probably that this vote will cause the greatest political reverberations in the campaigns of eurosceptic groups in other counties, by people who've probably never even been to Switzerland, let alone understand anything about her politics.
Meanwhile, expect the EU and Switzerland to engage in months of veiled threats, brinkmanship and negotiations before reaching a compromise that makes only minor or nominal changes and maintains the status quo.
Unlike Ireland and the other EU members the Swiss agreement had the following clause,
"(2) The seven agreements are intimately linked to one another by the requirement that they are to come into force at the same time and that they are to cease to apply at the same time, six months after the receipt of a non-renewal or denunciation notice concerning any one of them."
Switzerland agreed to free movement as did the EU as long as they both wanted it. I'm not sure in reality it makes much difference to the whole EU as such either way.
I do agree it will make little difference in reality. But I do not see how Switzerland is breaking a treaty if they follow this to the end.0 -
Breaking was a poor choice of words - ending or terminating would be more accurate - my bad.I do agree it will make little difference in reality. But I do not see how Switzerland is breaking a treaty if they follow this to the end.
But let's be honest, nothings likely to happen. Anyone remember how the Swiss passed an initiative for the deportation of foreign criminals in 2010? Because this included, in theory, lesser crimes that would have meant a breach of agreements on free movement with the EU, there was a good bit of sabre rattling then too. Nothing actually came of it in the end and there was no tightening up of any rules.
The whole thing is a non-event, and is simply being capitalized upon by the same morons who are no longer able to trumpet the collapse of the Eurozone, as they were a year or two ago, and so need a new propaganda rally point.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Breaking was a poor choice of words - ending or terminating would be more accurate - my bad.
But let's be honest, nothings likely to happen. Anyone remember how the Swiss passed an initiative for the deportation of foreign criminals in 2010? Because this included, in theory, lesser crimes that would have meant a breach of agreements on free movement with the EU, there was a good bit of sabre rattling then too. Nothing actually came of it in the end and there was no tightening up of any rules.
The whole thing is a non-event, and is simply being capitalized upon by the same morons who are no longer able to trumpet the collapse of the Eurozone, as they were a year or two ago, and so need a new propaganda rally point.
I totally agree, but a little part of me would love if the Swiss followed through and then discovered oooops that was a bad idea.0 -
What this Swiss poll shows is that Switzerland is a sovereign country, and a country which respects the rule of democracy. In Switzerland, at least, the people are sovereign and the government serves the people.
Elsewhere, as we have seen, the people are there to serve the government. For example, if the people vote the way the government don’t like, then the government either makes them vote again until they vote the “correct” way, or else the government simply gets what it wants in another way.
Interestingly, the Swiss decision will have major consequences for the referendum debate in the UK.
Sovereignty matters, except to those who are slaves to the EU, and are prepared to give up others sovereignty for their idealism. Sovereignty matters as we have seen, for example, many countries who gave up their national currencies and are now forced into the straightjacket of the Euro, their economies strangled, their people either unemployed or forced into emigration.
AS opinion poll after opinion poll shows, the balance of opinion is moving back to the nation states in Europe, and away from the one size fits all EU model. As we have too often seen, for example in the Ukraine, the EU is often simply unfit for purpose.
In 50 years time, I suspect, many will look back at the EU project and wonder how so many people could be fooled into ceding sovereignty and democratic transparency and accountability to a supra national institution. For more and more people across Europe, the EU is no longer the answer and is all too frequently the problem.
THe template is right, the US/EU model works best, but the timing is wrong imo. Some countries are just far too poor.0 -
Advertisement
-
Already the case. Sunday evening, there was a general sense of "what have we gotten ourselves into", even by supporters of the initiative. The debate on it in the Swiss press has been non-stop ever since.I totally agree, but a little part of me would love if the Swiss followed through and then discovered oooops that was a bad idea.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Probably, although why is another thing. Probably by people who have little or no understanding of Swiss politics.
The entire initiative (that's the closest English word to it, as it actually wasn't a referendum) has caused a bit of of an embarrassment to the Swiss government and even the SVP who initiated it in the first place.
I’d go for a little governmental embarrassment with democracy any day, over the alternatives.The Corinthian wrote: »To begin with, the Swiss also voted to agree to freedom of movement with the EU, so this triumph of democracy is essentially the same as any of us signing a contract, changing our minds later and then reneging on it. Calling it democracy won't change that fact. As a result, there's going to be consequences to this, just the same as there would be if any nation just decides to break a treaty.
No government has the right to bind the hands of its successors. In a democracy, the government is the will of the people, and to imply that the will of the people should be ignored because the people previously came to a different decision, would be perverse.
For example, we could apply the same logic to the second Lisbon referendum in Ireland and, using your logic, say that vote is invalid because, previously, the Irish people came to a different conclusion. I can’t see many people in agreement with this argument.The Corinthian wrote: »Chances are though, is they'll find a compromise. The Swiss government (which is not SVP run) has three years to find a way to avoid a diplomatic mess - to regain some tiny, even nominal, measure of imposing quotas on EU migration (thus satisfying the democratic decision), without actually making any serious difference to the status quo. Meanwhile, the SVP won't kick up too much as they're already distancing themselves (according to the Neue Zürcher Zeitung) from the result - unfortunately for them, they get most of their funding from the banks, who are not at all pleased with the idea of having to pay higher wages again for their workers.
It’s not at all clear why the workers working in Swiss banks would get a pay rise as a result of this referendum. No one is suggesting that, as a result of this vote, bank workers are going to be frogmarched across the Swiss borders and the only option for the banks is then to hire other workers, and at higher salaries.
Where does such a preposterous notion stem from?The Corinthian wrote: »Immigration is a big issue in Switzerland - in particular immigration from those EU countries nearest - Germany (to a much lesser extent Austria), France, Italy - because they can speak the national languages and can cross over and be on an equal footing with the Swiss.
Immigration is a big issue more or less everywhere across the EU, not least fuelled by EU policy itself.
Where this vote will help parties like UKIP and the Freedom Party is that is shows that it’s not only possible, but some will think necessary, to vote against the EU, and for the benefit of the country which does so.The Corinthian wrote: »Meanwhile, expect the EU and Switzerland to engage in months of veiled threats, brinkmanship and negotiations before reaching a compromise that makes only minor or nominal changes and maintains the status quo.
If the EU were to impose sanctions on Switzerland (for daring to allow democracy to prevail), then it is possible such action on the part of the EU would only serve to encourage parties like UKIP and their supporters, and drive others into their fold, and swell their numbers ever more.0 -
Proustian wrote:For example, we could apply the same logic to the second Lisbon referendum in Ireland and, using your logic, say that vote is invalid because, previously, the Irish people came to a different conclusion. I can’t see many people in agreement with this argument.
Unfortunately, it's actually an absolutely standard objection to the second Lisbon result by those who were on the No side. This forum is littered with posts claiming that the second result was invalid because it overturned the first result.Proustian wrote:If the EU were to impose sanctions on Switzerland (for daring to allow democracy to prevail)
This is, I think what The Corinithian was referring to when he said "calling it democracy doesn't change that". Yes, it's democracy, but the EU would not be "imposing sanctions" for "daring to allow democracy to prevail". It would be reconsidering its agreements with Switzerland because the Swiss have (democratically) decided on something that impacts those agreements. It's irrelevant how the decision was made - you can't just unilaterally change agreements.
A democracy can choose to do whatever it wants to do, but it cannot simply set aside existing agreements with other parties without any repercussions. The claim that one should be able to do so is nothing to do with democracy, and much to do with an unwillingness to take responsibility for the outcomes of one's choices, democratic or otherwise. Freedom is the freedom to take consequences, not freedom from consequences.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Who suggested a government should bind the hands of its successors? Democratically, we could change our minds every second year if we like. Doesn't mean that there wont be, potentially, consequences to such U-turns though.No government has the right to bind the hands of its successors. In a democracy, the government is the will of the people, and to imply that the will of the people should be ignored because the people previously came to a different decision, would be perverse.
Sure, if I'd used that logic. Except I didn't. All I've said is that it was a dumb call. Perfectly democratic and legitimate, but still dumb.For example, we could apply the same logic to the second Lisbon referendum in Ireland and, using your logic, say that vote is invalid because, previously, the Irish people came to a different conclusion. I can’t see many people in agreement with this argument.
Other than being more expensive to hire EU citizens, it also means that a company would have to hire a Swiss citizen first or show why they had to hire a foreigner. This will naturally increase salaries, because just because the Swiss citizen sought more money, isn't a sufficient reason to pick the foreigner.It’s not at all clear why the workers working in Swiss banks would get a pay rise as a result of this referendum.
What occurred in Switzerland was this; EU citizens currently have exactly the same employment rights as any Swiss citizen. That meant a level playing field between Swiss and non-Swiss applicants, and naturally with greater competition for the same jobs, salaries dropped. Where one would have earned 100'000 CHF in 2008, they could be earning as little as 70'000 CHF today.
So, turn back the clock and de facto decrease supply of labour, and salaries will increase once more. Which is grand if you're Swiss or a foreigner with a C status Ausweis, but you're still going to have to pay more to hire someone.
You're right, no one is suggesting that. Have you misunderstood something?No one is suggesting that, as a result of this vote, bank workers are going to be frogmarched across the Swiss borders and the only option for the banks is then to hire other workers, and at higher salaries.
Not least, but also not most.Immigration is a big issue more or less everywhere across the EU, not least fuelled by EU policy itself.
Where this vote will help parties like UKIP is that it'll be sold as some sort of victory against the EU and freedom of labour movement before the effects of this vote actually filter through; a bit like how the Eurozone collapse was already being celebrated long before it, well, didn't collapse.Where this vote will help parties like UKIP and the Freedom Party is that is shows that it’s not only possible, but some will think necessary, to vote against the EU, and for the benefit of the country which does so.
Idiotic argument. Are you suggesting that any nation should be allowed to alter the terms of a treaty signed with another, unilaterally, and without consequence, so long as they have a referendum on it?If the EU were to impose sanctions on Switzerland (for daring to allow democracy to prevail), then it is possible such action on the part of the EU would only serve to encourage parties like UKIP and their supporters, and drive others into their fold, and swell their numbers ever more.
The Swiss have a treaty with the EU. They now effectively want to renegotiate it. Fine. No guarantee they'll get the same terms as before though and inventing some conspiracy against democracy because of what is ultimately a pretty obvious point of diplomacy doesn't change that.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Who suggested a government should bind the hands of its successors? Democratically, we could change our minds every second year if we like. Doesn't mean that there wont be, potentially, consequences to such U-turns though.
Sure, if I'd used that logic. Except I didn't. All I've said is that it was a dumb call. Perfectly democratic and legitimate, but still dumb.
Democracy isn’t perfect. And no one likes all the results of democracy. But its one of the most precious things we have, and we undermine it at our grave peril.
There are consequences to everything, just as there would have been consequences if the vote went the other way too.
I don’t know who may have suggested that a government should bind the hands of its successors, but I suggested the opposite.The Corinthian wrote: »Other than being more expensive to hire EU citizens, it also means that a company would have to hire a Swiss citizen first or show why they had to hire a foreigner. This will naturally increase salaries, because just because the Swiss citizen sought more money, isn't a sufficient reason to pick the foreigner.
The referendum had nothing to do with the law you mention, forcing Swiss banks to hire Swiss citizens first and so on. Did you actually read the referendum that the Swiss voted for?
It seems you are saying that, at some time in the future this might happened and if it did that could lead to this other thing happening which might mean higher salaries. Its all conjecture and speculations on a very flimsy base.
I agree, and UKIP and the Freedom Party are already capitalising on the results. Lets hope your apparent faith that the Euro and Eurozone is not overtaken by events yet to happen, and it might be a little early to blow out the candles and celebrate.The Corinthian wrote: »
Where this vote will help parties like UKIP is that it'll be sold as some sort of victory against the EU and freedom of labour movement before the effects of this vote actually filter through; a bit like how the Eurozone collapse was already being celebrated long before it, well, didn't collapse.The Corinthian wrote: »Idiotic argument. Are you suggesting that any nation should be allowed to alter the terms of a treaty signed with another, unilaterally, and without consequence, so long as they have a referendum on it?
I am suggesting that it’s not up to me to tell any democratic people what they are and what they are not permitted to do. Any consequences are for the people to consider when they are voting.The Corinthian wrote: »The Swiss have a treaty with the EU. They now effectively want to renegotiate it. Fine. No guarantee they'll get the same terms as before though and inventing some conspiracy against democracy because of what is ultimately a pretty obvious point of diplomacy doesn't change that.
You seem to think that the Swiss are on the back foot, and all the cards are in the hands of the EU. There is no guarantee the EU will get the same terms as before either. Treaties work both ways.
If the EU tries to be petty and vindictive and “punish” the Swiss for allowing a democratic vote which displeases the masters in the EU, I’d suggest such action on the part of the EU would bolster Britain’s vote to leave the EU, and hasten others to do likewise.Unfortunately, it's actually an absolutely standard objection to the second Lisbon result by those who were on the No side. This forum is littered with posts claiming that the second result was invalid because it overturned the first result.
My understanding was that the objection was in being forced to vote again, but no one claims the second result was invalid or false.
the EU would not be "imposing sanctions" for "daring to allow democracy to prevail". It would be reconsidering its agreements with Switzerland because the Swiss have (democratically) decided on something that impacts those agreements. It's irrelevant how the decision was made - you can't just unilaterally change agreements.
Of course, Switzerland is also reconsidering its agreements with the EU, just as the EU is reconsidering its agreements with Switzerland. That’s what the vote means.
I can’t unilaterally change agreements, I agree. But the Swiss can, and have. And in so doing give succour to UKIP etc.A democracy can choose to do whatever it wants to do, but it cannot simply set aside existing agreements with other parties without any repercussions. The claim that one should be able to do so is nothing to do with democracy, and much to do with an unwillingness to take responsibility for the outcomes of one's choices, democratic or otherwise. Freedom is the freedom to take consequences, not freedom from consequences.
You imply that the repercussions are all one way, and it will be the EU “imposing” repercussions on Switzerland, with Switzerland having no way of retaliating to “repercussions”. That’s not how a negotiation works, and the reason the EU and Switzerland want a treaty is because there are benefits for both the EU and Switzerland.
Having said that, if the EU did try to punish Switzerland with “repercussions” , the damage that would do to the EU, and the fillip it would give to UKIP and the Freedom Party, could irreparably damage the EU and lead to it breaking up.
The old days of if-you-don’t-do-as-we-want-there-will-be-repercussions threats from the EU are leading to success for parties like UKIP, and driving voters away from the EU and into similar parties across Europe.0 -
For example, if the people vote the way the government don’t like, then the government either makes them vote again...
Nobody was forced to vote again. Not one single person was forced, compelled, intimidated, pressured or threatened into voting either the first time or the second. Nobody. Repeating this lie won't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.My understanding was that the objection was in being forced to vote again...0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Nobody was forced to vote again. Not one single person was forced, compelled, intimidated, pressured or threatened into voting either the first time or the second. Nobody. Repeating this lie won't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
That sort of misses the point though, does it not?0 -
I don’t know who may have suggested that a government should bind the hands of its successors either - all I know is you started discussing it.I don’t know who may have suggested that a government should bind the hands of its successors, but I suggested the opposite.
What law did I just mention? And yes, I actually did read the exact wording of the initiative.The referendum had nothing to do with the law you mention, forcing Swiss banks to hire Swiss citizens first and so on. Did you actually read the referendum that the Swiss voted for?
I'm not entirely certain what you're trying to say there, but all I'm doing is pointing out basic labour economics - supply and demand. I've also seen the effect of free movement of Swiss salary levels first hand.It seems you are saying that, at some time in the future this might happened and if it did that could lead to this other thing happening which might mean higher salaries. Its all conjecture and speculations on a very flimsy base.
You mean like eurosceptics were a year or two ago?I agree, and UKIP and the Freedom Party are already capitalising on the results. Lets hope your apparent faith that the Euro and Eurozone is not overtaken by events yet to happen, and it might be a little early to blow out the candles and celebrate.
No, you didn't say that; you implied that were the consequences of a rejection of a treaty they've signed up to to be negative, this would somehow be an attack on their democratic rights. In fact, you went so far as to suggest that the EU would "impose sanctions" on Switzerland, when in reality it would be simply respecting Switzerland's democratic and legal right to terminate an agreement.I am suggesting that it’s not up to me to tell any democratic people what they are and what they are not permitted to do. Any consequences are for the people to consider when they are voting.
Problem is that the Swiss are in the weaker position by far. And they know this.You seem to think that the Swiss are on the back foot, and all the cards are in the hands of the EU. There is no guarantee the EU will get the same terms as before either. Treaties work both ways.
Ahh, here we are again with the anti-democratic conspiracy fantasy. There's no need for the EU to punish anyone. Just honour the termination of the bilateral treaties as requested by Switzerland. If that turns out to screw up the Swiss, then so be it.If the EU tries to be petty and vindictive and “punish” the Swiss for allowing a democratic vote which displeases the masters in the EU, I’d suggest such action on the part of the EU would bolster Britain’s vote to leave the EU, and hasten others to do likewise.
Or are you suggesting that the EU should not honour the agreement they made with Switzerland?
Actually no one can unilaterally change agreements; at least not without consequences. And these were laid out clearly in the agreement they signed up to.I can’t unilaterally change agreements, I agree. But the Swiss can, and have. And in so doing give succour to UKIP etc.0 -
-
Great result!! Hopefully this will be the start of big changes, the E.U only needs to facilitate free trade and free moment of goods, no need to treat people like goods just to benefit low wages for mega corps.0
-
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »If it's missing the point, then perhaps the point should be made honestly.
I'm not sure what other poster was saying but what I was referring to was, by having a re run of a vote, we are agreed no one is being forced to vote again, but it's a bit similar to a team winning a match and the authorities don't like the result and tell the winning team, 'no one is forcing you to play the replay'.0 -
Great result!! Hopefully this will be the start of big changes, the E.U only needs to facilitate free trade and free moment of goods, no need to treat people like goods just to benefit low wages for mega corps.
Low wages did not know that the EU was in the low wage category. Where exactly does the EU come in the world league tables of low wage economies?0 -
-
Of course, Switzerland doesn't have to facilitate any of these things, given that its not a member.Great result!! Hopefully this will be the start of big changes, the E.U only needs to facilitate free trade and free moment of goods, no need to treat people like goods just to benefit low wages for mega corps.
It does, however, have to abide by the agreements that it makes with the EU.0 -
It's a bit similar to that, but it's much more dissimilar. The government, having negotiated a treaty, wanted permission to ratify it. Having been denied that permission, they weren't suddenly going to not want to ratify the treaty that they had negotiated, so they asked for permission again.I'm not sure what other poster was saying but what I was referring to was, by having a re run of a vote, we are agreed no one is being forced to vote again, but it's a bit similar to a team winning a match and the authorities don't like the result and tell the winning team, 'no one is forcing you to play the replay'.
That's completely and totally within the government's remit, as defined by our constitution. Nobody was forced to vote the first time, nobody was forced to vote the second time, nobody was forced to vote a particular way in either referendum. The use of the word "forced" in that context is a particularly dishonest form of rhetoric, especially coming from someone who witters on and on and on and on about what a special and wonderful thing democracy is.
Apparently democracy is wonderful, as long as we stop voting when we get the outcome he wants.0 -
I would imagine the poster is referring to countries like Romania, where €10 an hour may be deemed an attractive wage.
As did ireland in the 1970's, the point the poster tried to make was free movement of workers drove down wages across the EU, where is the proof. Or is someone saying free movement has caused low wages in Romania. BTW a wage of €10 an hour is an attractive wage in Ireland, or am I missing something.0 -
Unless it decides it doesn't want to anymore. If this happens, it's democratic and wonderful. If the EU in turn no longer abides by the same agreements, that's "petty and vindictive" and a form of punishment.It does, however, have to abide by the agreements that it makes with the EU.
Apparently.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »It's a bit similar to that, but it's much more dissimilar. The government, having negotiated a treaty, wanted permission to ratify it. Having been denied that permission, they weren't suddenly going to not want to ratify the treaty that they had negotiated, so they asked for permission again.
That's completely and totally within the government's remit, as defined by our constitution. Nobody was forced to vote the first time, nobody was forced to vote the second time, nobody was forced to vote a particular way in either referendum. The use of the word "forced" in that context is a particularly dishonest form of rhetoric, especially coming from someone who witters on and on and on and on about what a special and wonderful thing democracy is.
Apparently democracy is wonderful, as long as we stop voting when we get the outcome he wants.
I see, I'm not aware of the other poster's position.
We're sort of gone on a tangent here, but how many times in your opinion is it okay for a government to ask for that permission?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Of course, Switzerland doesn't have to facilitate any of these things, given that its not a member.
It does, however, have to abide by the agreements that it makes with the EU.
And that guarantee allowed Switzerland to opt out by either not confirming on renewal or giving notice of giving up the agreement. So to put it anther way it agreed to free movement untill it decided no more.0 -
As did ireland in the 1970's, the point the poster tried to make was free movement of workers drove down wages across the EU, where is the proof. Or is someone saying free movement has caused low wages in Romania. BTW a wage of €10 an hour is an attractive wage in Ireland, or am I missing something.
Free movement has the potential to force down labour costs. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Where I see it as a problem is on the infrastructure...for instance, education system , can it cope?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »There's no limit that I'm aware of in the constitution.
That's sort of worrying, a definite failing in the constitution.0 -
-
Free movement has the potential to force down labour costs. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Where I see it as a problem is on the infrastructure...for instance, education system , can it cope?
Any evidence it can't? There are more than likely some schools that are viable due to immigration. I am not aware of any strains on the system due to immigration even if there is, the system also gets a large amount of its income from taxes paid by immigrants. So unless you have studies saying education is failing or immigrants cost more than locals I don't see the problem. I like the idea that if I'm offered a job in Italy I can with relative ease move there.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »You think the constitution should put restrictions on people's right to vote in referenda?
So much for the importance of democracy.
I'm not referring to any 1 particular vote, but when there is a vote (for instance the gay rights), the result should stand whether the government like it or not. If the gay rights were defeated, that result should stand for a certain period of time.
Once a second vote is held on the same matter, democracy is instantly eroded.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually that would be the principle reason why many Swiss would have voted in favour on Sunday. One problem has been that rents have been going through the roof in recent years because of the influx of people from abroad. New housing has been built, but generally in the higher end of the market (2'500+ chf p.m.), because EU labour tends to be better educated and goes for the better paying jobs and this has caused a shortage in the cheaper end of the market. Ironically non-EU immigrants, who tend to have the McJobs, have suffered most in this regard.Free movement has the potential to force down labour costs. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Where I see it as a problem is on the infrastructure...for instance, education system , can it cope?
Nonetheless, it's pretty insane to try and put Switzerland on the same level of as the UK or Ireland, in terms of EU migration. About 23% of the population is foreign (although many are male 'secondos' - foreigners who grew up in Switzerland - who are just waiting until they hit 40 to apply for citizenship, because they want to avoid military service). To compare this with migration levels within the EU is pretty laughable.
So I sympathize with the Swiss position, but at the same time they did sign an agreement and to try and sell the consequences of ending said agreement as somehow undemocratic is pretty intellectually dishonest.0 -
Any evidence it can't? There are more than likely some schools that are viable due to immigration. I am not aware of any strains on the system due to immigration even if there is, the system also gets a large amount of its income from taxes paid by immigrants. So unless you have studies saying education is failing or immigrants cost more than locals I don't see the problem. I like the idea that if I'm offered a job in Italy I can with relative ease move there.
Aren't the teaching unions forever demanding more resources for foreign nationals. I can't really blame them when one gives it a minutes thought.0 -
I'm not referring to any 1 particular vote, but when there is a vote (for instance the gay rights), the result should stand whether the government like it or not. If the gay rights were defeated, that result should stand for a certain period of time.
Once a second vote is held on the same matter, democracy is instantly eroded.
What? So say in 1950 we amended the constitution to say no catholic could marry outside their religion, we can not have another amendment ever or is it only a temporal restriction.
If we have 2 or 3 votes on the same issue so what we did on abortion so what. If the people vote ya or na once they vote. There is no erosion of democracy to ask the same question multiple times, otherwise why have elections.0 -
Aren't the teaching unions forever demanding more resources for foreign nationals. I can't really blame them when one gives it a minutes thought.
Trade union demands more resources shock. BTW about 40% of EU immigration is UK ya I suppose those scousers need extra English classes.
But again I ask where is the study that shows education in ireland has been harmed by EU immigration.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Actually that would be the principle reason why many Swiss would have voted in favour on Sunday. One problem has been that rents have been going through the roof in recent years because of the influx of people from abroad. New housing has been built, but generally in the higher end of the market (2'500+ chf p.m.), because EU labour tends to be better educated and goes for the better paying jobs and this has caused a shortage in the cheaper end of the market. Ironically non-EU immigrants, who tend to have the McJobs, have suffered most in this regard.
Nonetheless, it's pretty insane to try and put Switzerland on the same level of as the UK or Ireland, in terms of EU migration. About 23% of the population is foreign (although many are male 'secondos' - foreigners who grew up in Switzerland - who are just waiting until they hit 40 to apply for citizenship, because they want to avoid military service). To compare this with migration levels within the EU is pretty laughable.
So I sympathize with the Swiss position, but at the same time they did sign an agreement and to try and sell the consequences of ending said agreement as somehow undemocratic is pretty intellectually dishonest.
This a complex issue. Every country will be affected differently.
I'm not really sure what you mean by that.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not referring to any 1 particular vote, but when there is a vote (for instance the gay rights), the result should stand whether the government like it or not. If the gay rights were defeated, that result should stand for a certain period of time.
Once a second vote is held on the same matter, democracy is instantly eroded.
Except that in the Irish referendum about the Lisbon treaty, after it was rejected, the Irish concerns were addressed.
The second referendum was about the Lisbon treaty amended specifically to reflect the Irish concerns.
So it was not a referendum about the same matter, as you appear to be suggesting.0 -
goalscoringhero wrote: »Except that in the Irish referendum about the Lisbon treaty, after it was rejected, the Irish concerns were addressed.
The second referendum was about the Lisbon treaty amended specifically to reflect the Irish concerns.
So it was not a referendum about the same matter, as you appear to be suggesting.
Certainly not, I merely made an observation that the Swiss govt must respect the vote and not hold a new one in the immediate future. To do so would erode democracy imo. Other posters may have been discussing the Irish one.0 -
That's the thing in Switzerland, if enough signatures are collected it will be voted on again in the near future. It's not necessarily the government that decides if and when so your opinion regarding the erosion of democracy doesn't take this into account. Which is often the problem when applying local knowledge, laws or opinion on another country's political system.0
-
I was referring to this particular weasel-worded argument by Proustian:I'm not really sure what you mean by that.If the EU were to impose sanctions on Switzerland (for daring to allow democracy to prevail)
Indeed. The Swiss system is actually quite complex and full of checks and balances that act as 'sanity checks' to the initiatives that are called. Even if a one is passed by popular vote, there's no guarantee it'll actually be legislated for as intended.That's the thing in Switzerland, if enough signatures are collected it will be voted on again in the near future. It's not necessarily the government that decides if and when so your opinion regarding the erosion of democracy doesn't take this into account. Which is often the problem when applying local knowledge, laws or opinion on another country's political system.
There was a poster who described how it worked quite well, some time ago, but I can't seem to find his/her posts on the subject.0 -
That's the thing in Switzerland, if enough signatures are collected it will be voted on again in the near future. It's not necessarily the government that decides if and when so your opinion regarding the erosion of democracy doesn't take this into account. Which is often the problem when applying local knowledge, laws or opinion on another country's political system.
Okay, that's a valid point.
What if the vote went the other way,, would it just take more signatures to force another vote?0 -
Of course. I think that it's fairly rare the same issue is voted on in which succession though. Will ask my girlfriend if it does/ ever happens though.0
-
That sort of reminds me of the fiasco going on in places like Egypt.
Someone gets voted in ----> protests on the street ----> people call for 'fresh' elections.0 -
I always find it funny that Switzerland is held up as a bastion of democracy, when they only allowed women the vote in 1971.0
-
And in the half-canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden, women got the vote in 1991.I always find it funny that Switzerland is held up as a bastion of democracy, when they only allowed women the vote in 1971.
The logic was thus; the right to vote was tied to the citizen's duty to defend his fatherland - that it, you got the vote because you did military service and could be called up in times of war. As women were exempt from this, they didn't 'earn' the the right to vote. A man who didn't do military service, in the past, also could not vote.
I think the argument that won women the vote was ultimately that the Swiss army could not facilitate women to do military service even if they wanted to, so this was unfair. And the rest is history.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »
There's no limit that I'm aware of in the constitution.I see, I'm not aware of the other poster's position.
We're sort of gone on a tangent here, but how many times in your opinion is it okay for a government to ask for that permission?
In fact, the issue was tested directly during Lisbon 2. A case was taken against the government calling the second referendum. The government specifically fought the case on the basis of using exactly the same referendum question again, without any changes in the interim, and won the case.
There is no legal or constitutional limit in Ireland on how often the government can call a referendum on the same question. And no previous referendum result can be held to bind the people at referendum.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement