Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #941  
Old 02.08.2014, 18:55
11HoursInTheTinPan's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Zurich
Posts: 504
Groaned at 19 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 892 Times in 354 Posts
11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Thats the point, the EU doesnt have to do anything.
The EU will be following the means written into the treaty itself to terminate it, when they apply the guillotine clause.

If they want to terminate without the conditions for the guillotine clause being fulfilled, thats when the council unanimity and parliament vote would be needed. As current matters stand CH is on its way to fulfill those conditions by 2017.
Two step forwards, three steps back.

To quote from the article again (highlighting by me):
Quote:
Jetzt bleibt also nur noch die Kündigung der bilateralen Verträge?
[...] In der Masseneinwanderungsinitiative steht nirgends geschrieben, dass der Bundesrat kündigen muss, sollten die Verhandlungen mit der EU scheitern. Die Schweiz steht mit dem Problem nicht alleine da: Es gibt immer wieder Fälle, in denen Staaten im Widerspruch zu internationalem Recht handeln, ohne an eine Kündigung zu denken. Eine andere Frage ist natürlich die, wie die EU auf einen Vertragsbruch reagieren wird.

Was, wenn die EU der Schweiz kündigt?
Das halte ich für unwahrscheinlich, da es dazu einen einstimmigen Beschluss im Ministerrat und die Zustimmung des Parlaments bräuchte. Viel eher steuern wir nun auf einen vertragswidrigen Zustand zu. Auch wenn die Konsequenzen nicht sofort spürbar wären, könnte die Schweiz in rechtliche und praktische Schwierigkeiten geraten. Als Beispiel: Eine deutsche Person, der trotz der Anstellung die Einreise verwehrt wird, könnte vor Gericht klagen. Was dann geschieht, ist schwer abzuschätzen.
Rough translation:
Quote:
So, the only thing left is terminating the bilaterals?
[...] It says nowhere in the text of the Masseneinwanderungsinitiative that the federal council must terminate the treaties, if negotiating with the EU fails. Switzerland is not the only country with this problem: There are cases from time to time, in which countries act against international law without even thinking about termination of a treaty. Another question is, of course, how the EU will react if Switzerland breaks the contract.

What if the EU terminates the treaty with Switzerland?
I consider this unlikely, as an unanimous resolution of the Council of the European Union is required as well as the consent of the European Parliament. It is much more likely that we are heading into the state of constant violation of the treaty. Even if the consequences would not be immediately noticeable, Switzerland could run into legal and practical problems. As an example: A German, who would not be allowed to enter Switzerland although a working contract exists, could sue Switzerland. What would happen then is difficult to foresee.
What I would like to find now, as it was claimed here that the unanimous resolution is not required, is a source which clearly states the steps required within the European institutions that would be required to terminate the contracts from EU side. Everything else is just hearsay - at best.

The guillotine clause has nothing to do with that. It is only important if a treaty is terminated from one of the two sides and says something about what is happening to the other treaties. I only want to know what is required to terminate in the first place within the EU institutions.
__________________
"Sometimes it's hard to tell the living from the dead" -- Edgar Winter
Reply With Quote
  #942  
Old 03.08.2014, 04:13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Aachen
Posts: 308
Groaned at 58 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 260 Times in 131 Posts
SteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of many
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Two step forwards, three steps back.

To quote from the article again (highlighting by me):


Rough translation:


What I would like to find now, as it was claimed here that the unanimous resolution is not required, is a source which clearly states the steps required within the European institutions that would be required to terminate the contracts from EU side. Everything else is just hearsay - at best.

The guillotine clause has nothing to do with that. It is only important if a treaty is terminated from one of the two sides and says something about what is happening to the other treaties. I only want to know what is required to terminate in the first place within the EU institutions.
I am afraid that this woman or guy in the article has a lot of imagination, a law that contradicts the treaty simply makes it fall down plus guilottine clause. This was defined years ago, it requires no vote.
Reply With Quote
  #943  
Old 03.08.2014, 05:01
Jim2007's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kt. Bern
Posts: 2,792
Groaned at 55 Times in 51 Posts
Thanked 3,023 Times in 1,525 Posts
Jim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
I only want to know what is required to terminate in the first place within the EU institutions.
Artle 218 of THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION sets out the procedure for the EU to enter into an agreement wth a third country, I assume the same procedure would be followed. It requires a qualified majority in the council of ministers and the concent of the EU Parliment on the proposal from the High Representative.
Reply With Quote
  #944  
Old 03.08.2014, 16:02
11HoursInTheTinPan's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Zurich
Posts: 504
Groaned at 19 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 892 Times in 354 Posts
11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
I am afraid that this woman or guy in the article has a lot of imagination, a law that contradicts the treaty simply makes it fall down plus guilottine clause. This was defined years ago, it requires no vote.
That's an interview, not an article. It's hilarious that everybody here seems to try to bad mouth Christa Tobler while producing absolutely nothing sources wise.

It's not that difficult: Now you claim something was defined 'years ago'. Defined when? Defined by whom? Sources please...

Quote:
View Post
Artle 218 of THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION sets out the procedure for the EU to enter into an agreement wth a third country, I assume the same procedure would be followed. It requires a qualified majority in the council of ministers and the concent of the EU Parliment on the proposal from the High Representative.
I think you might actually have hit the nail on the head. This might however be relevant (highlighting by me):

Quote:
8. The Council shall act by a qualified majority throughout the procedure.
However, it shall act unanimously when the agreement covers a field for which unanimity is required for the adoption of a Union act as well as for association agreements and the agreements referred to in Article 212 with the States which are candidates for accession. The Council shall also act unanimously for the agreement on accession of the Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; the decision concluding this agreement shall enter into force after it has been approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
I think Switzerlands bilaterals don't fall under the category under the "association agreements" listed on Wikipedia. I don't know what is required to be "candidate for accession", but the bilaterals should fall under the agreements mentioned in article 217:
Quote:
The Union may conclude with one or more third countries or international organisations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.
So if the assumption is correct that the contracts have to be terminated in the same way as concluded, unanimity is not required if no other exceptions apply. This article however mentions that it is required for the guillotine clause and this one that "some" of the treaties require it (I think Schengen is such a case). So it looks like it may depend on the treaty on how to terminate it.
__________________
"Sometimes it's hard to tell the living from the dead" -- Edgar Winter
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank 11HoursInTheTinPan for this useful post:
  #945  
Old 04.08.2014, 10:31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Aachen
Posts: 308
Groaned at 58 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 260 Times in 131 Posts
SteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of many
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
That's an interview, not an article. It's hilarious that everybody here seems to try to bad mouth Christa Tobler while producing absolutely nothing sources wise.

It's not that difficult: Now you claim something was defined 'years ago'. Defined when? Defined by whom? Sources please...



I think you might actually have hit the nail on the head. This might however be relevant (highlighting by me):

I think Switzerlands bilaterals don't fall under the category under the "association agreements" listed on Wikipedia. I don't know what is required to be "candidate for accession", but the bilaterals should fall under the agreements mentioned in article 217:
So if the assumption is correct that the contracts have to be terminated in the same way as concluded, unanimity is not required if no other exceptions apply. This article however mentions that it is required for the guillotine clause and this one that "some" of the treaties require it (I think Schengen is such a case). So it looks like it may depend on the treaty on how to terminate it.

Acceding country:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/...e/index_en.htm

You are not an acceding country, you never applied for this status.

The text of the treaty:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...LEX:32002D0309

(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.

Why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine_clause

In Particular:

Example of the guillotine clause is found in the bilateral body of treaties between the European Union to Switzerland. The clause states that, if any of the seven treaties are to be terminated, all of the treaties are automatically terminated. Also, later changes in the underlying EU directives must be accepted by Switzerland. One reason for the creation of this clause is that the more cumbersome decision-making processes of the European Union would make it difficult for the EU to respond to the termination of other contracts, should Switzerland terminate them.


I suppose that even if they are EU legislator you could avoid at the very least the assumption that they are not even able to perform a single "what if?" step.

Concerning the resigning of the treaty and the 9th of F. Ref.:

1 Les traités internationaux contraires ŕ l’art. 121a doivent ętre renégociés et adaptés dans un délai de trois ans ŕ compter de l’acceptation dudit article par le peuple et les cantons.

They have to be renegotiated: if the negotiation fails, the treaty falls.
At the moment, the outlook is that it is failing.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank SteAlka for this useful post:
  #946  
Old 04.08.2014, 13:55
Jim2007's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kt. Bern
Posts: 2,792
Groaned at 55 Times in 51 Posts
Thanked 3,023 Times in 1,525 Posts
Jim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

So it would seem that neither the THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION nor the bilateral agreement itself requires unanimity voting.... I wonder why the journalists are not challenging people like Ms. Tobler and Mr. Blocher when they make statements to the contrary???
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jim2007 for this useful post:
  #947  
Old 04.08.2014, 14:31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Aachen
Posts: 308
Groaned at 58 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 260 Times in 131 Posts
SteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of many
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
So it would seem that neither the THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION nor the bilateral agreement itself requires unanimity voting.... I wonder why the journalists are not challenging people like Ms. Tobler and Mr. Blocher when they make statements to the contrary???
I suppose they are not much informed on the matter.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank SteAlka for this useful post:
  #948  
Old 04.08.2014, 18:25
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 7,772
Groaned at 64 Times in 58 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,090 Posts
aSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Concerning the resigning of the treaty and the 9th of F. Ref.:

1 Les traités internationaux contraires ŕ l’art. 121a doivent ętre renégociés et adaptés dans un délai de trois ans ŕ compter de l’acceptation dudit article par le peuple et les cantons.

They have to be renegotiated: if the negotiation fails, the treaty falls.
At the moment, the outlook is that it is failing.
The Swiss constitution does not mention anything what should happen if a renegotiation fails. Canceling from the Swiss side is not mandatory.

Second, FMOP agreement does not say that the agreement becomes void if one party breaches it. Breaching =/= canceling.

Third, before the Swiss can breach the agreement they need a new law or federal legislaton in case no such law exists at the end of February 2017.

Fourth, it is possible that such a law is in accordance with the FMOP agreement and the Swiss constitution. Even more, it is possible that sucha a law is in agreement with the FMOP but NOT with the Swiss constituition. Swiss law can be against the Swiss constitution as long as 50000 persons did not object within 100 days.
__________________
PLAYER 1 ENTER YOUR NAME:_
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank aSwissInTheUS for this useful post:
  #949  
Old 04.08.2014, 21:38
Jim2007's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kt. Bern
Posts: 2,792
Groaned at 55 Times in 51 Posts
Thanked 3,023 Times in 1,525 Posts
Jim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Second, FMOP agreement does not say that the agreement becomes void if one party breaches it. Breaching =/= canceling.
You have really lost the plot if you think for a moment the EU is going to stand by and do nothing while we break the agreement... If they did they have all the other countries they have agreements doing the same and that is just not going to happen.

Quote:
View Post
Fourth, it is possible that such a law is in accordance with the FMOP agreement and the Swiss constitution. Even more, it is possible that sucha a law is in agreement with the FMOP but NOT with the Swiss constituition. Swiss law can be against the Swiss constitution as long as 50000 persons did not object within 100 days.
And you think that the SVP can't russell up the required 50K....

The SVP and its supporters need to be held accountable for their actions - they need to start coming serious working solutions and stop this nonsense of hoping and wishing it will turn out OK. Because if we are not very careful we will end up in a situation where there is no way back but to apply for full membership and that is not what most people want.
__________________
"There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living." - Nelson Mandela
Reply With Quote
  #950  
Old 05.08.2014, 09:36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Aachen
Posts: 308
Groaned at 58 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 260 Times in 131 Posts
SteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of many
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
The Swiss constitution does not mention anything what should happen if a renegotiation fails. Canceling from the Swiss side is not mandatory.

Second, FMOP agreement does not say that the agreement becomes void if one party breaches it. Breaching =/= canceling.
It is not a bug in a computer with a Java interpreter that throws a null pointer exception and no one will do anything about it.

I do not see Sommaruga or Bukhalter playing the "let's breach it forever and ever!" game, considering that they did not sign
the FMOP for Croatia, they expressed a very clear will to do the things correctly.


Quote:
Third, before the Swiss can breach the agreement they need a new law or federal legislaton in case no such law exists at the end of February 2017.

Fourth, it is possible that such a law is in accordance with the FMOP agreement and the Swiss constitution. Even more, it is possible that sucha a law is in agreement with the FMOP but NOT with the Swiss constituition. Swiss law can be against the Swiss constitution as long as 50000 persons did not object within 100 days.
...for the god sake... same discussion as above, people want solutions, not loops and loops and loops.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank SteAlka for this useful post:
This user groans at SteAlka for this post:
  #951  
Old 05.08.2014, 10:09
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 11,210
Groaned at 122 Times in 98 Posts
Thanked 13,397 Times in 6,656 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
...for the god sake... same discussion as above, people want solutions, not loops and loops and loops.
I think it boils down to what repetitively gets pointed out. People seem to not care for solutions, 2017 is not now and the ability to see further is not automatic, especially here.

Journalists need to do their homework on getting informed and pushing the political debate to better quality as it should be expected if people in fact were interested. Since they clearly were not, it should be supervised by gov curbing misleading and manipulative racist and xenophobic hate rhetorics.

Last edited by MusicChick; 05.08.2014 at 11:08.
Reply With Quote
  #952  
Old 05.08.2014, 10:14
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,241
Groaned at 179 Times in 154 Posts
Thanked 17,588 Times in 7,465 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post

The SVP and its supporters need to be held accountable for their actions - they need to start coming serious working solutions and stop this nonsense of hoping and wishing it will turn out OK. Because if we are not very careful we will end up in a situation where there is no way back but to apply for full membership and that is not what most people want.
So far the Bundesrat and their lawyers have been trying to handle this by themselves and keep the SVP out of it. This is also pretty in-Swiss as usually the party or group that wins a popular referendum also gets to take part in implementing it, or at least writing the law.

So basically they are handing the SVP their next victory on a golden plate because if this things succeeds, the SVP will be able to say, see, it wasn't that difficult was it? If it fails, they will be able to say, it failed because you sabotaged it and if you would have let us handle the negotiations we would have got what we wanted.

But it's not the ist time they've done this. And it's not been the first time the other parties were too blind to see what was coming.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #953  
Old 06.08.2014, 13:14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Aachen
Posts: 308
Groaned at 58 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 260 Times in 131 Posts
SteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of many
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
So far the Bundesrat and their lawyers have been trying to handle this by themselves and keep the SVP out of it. This is also pretty in-Swiss as usually the party or group that wins a popular referendum also gets to take part in implementing it, or at least writing the law.

So basically they are handing the SVP their next victory on a golden plate because if this things succeeds, the SVP will be able to say, see, it wasn't that difficult was it? If it fails, they will be able to say, it failed because you sabotaged it and if you would have let us handle the negotiations we would have got what we wanted.

But it's not the ist time they've done this. And it's not been the first time the other parties were too blind to see what was coming.
I think they have lost consensus for the things they said and did after winning.

Extreme parties always lose consensus after getting what they wanted. The simple story is that the claims they propose are as so extreme that only an angry/hungry population can vote them: not even the most crazy lunatics in the party itself know how to proceed after winning.

I have seen this everywhere I have been, at different degrees, with an answer from UDC/SVP that is absolutely the same as those of the relative parties in other countries: complete disorganisation and even more extreme campaigns to keep up with the hyperbolicity of the previous one.

http://www.24heures.ch/suisse/L-UDC-...story/24440501

Disorganisation. It is even naive to think that they have to focus where they are already strong.


http://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/602920...-en-avion.html

We can comment this only with a good laugh.

Their next victory will be a teddy bear at the funfair maybe. Sure, it can be served in a golden plate. .
Reply With Quote
This user groans at SteAlka for this post:
  #954  
Old 06.08.2014, 13:27
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,241
Groaned at 179 Times in 154 Posts
Thanked 17,588 Times in 7,465 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
I think they have lost consensus for the things they said and did after winning.

Extreme parties always lose consensus after getting what they wanted. The simple story is that the claims they propose are as so extreme that only an angry/hungry population can vote them: not even the most crazy lunatics in the party itself know how to proceed after winning.

I have seen this everywhere I have been, at different degrees, with an answer from UDC/SVP that is absolutely the same as those of the relative parties in other countries: complete disorganisation and even more extreme campaigns to keep up with the hyperbolicity of the previous one.

http://www.24heures.ch/suisse/L-UDC-...story/24440501

Disorganisation. It is even naive to think that they have to focus where they are already strong.


http://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/602920...-en-avion.html

We can comment this only with a good laugh.

Their next victory will be a teddy bear at the funfair maybe. Sure, it can be served in a golden plate. .
Methinks you are falling into the trap of underestimating their tactics, assuming they are in disarray, and being blind to their next moves.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #955  
Old 06.08.2014, 13:39
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 11,210
Groaned at 122 Times in 98 Posts
Thanked 13,397 Times in 6,656 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Under-estimating? Everyone was laughing at them here a few months back and defending their right to freedom of speech.
Reply With Quote
  #956  
Old 06.08.2014, 14:02
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 7,772
Groaned at 64 Times in 58 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,090 Posts
aSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
You have really lost the plot if you think for a moment the EU is going to stand by and do nothing while we break the agreement... If they did they have all the other countries they have agreements doing the same and that is just not going to happen.
Quote:
View Post
It is not a bug in a computer with a Java interpreter that throws a null pointer exception and no one will do anything about it.
I think I got not through with my message. It is not about if the EU cancels the agreement or not. It is about the conditions that will lead to a cancelation. Just breaching a contract does not cancel it. There are many international contracts which are repeatedly breached by one or the other party w/o any consequences. As SteAlka says, someone has to do something, and that is the point. Formally and with a certain specific procedure. That is what 11HoursInTheTinPan is trying to find out: What is the exact procdure.
PS: One thing is for sure, the EU could even follow this procedure today or tommorow. Because breaching is not a precondition for cancelation. That would shake and kick many people out of there dreamy dreams. From this perspective the bilateral agreements could be history in just six months from now.
With the result of:
Quote:
View Post
Because if we are not very careful we will end up in a situation where there is no way back but to apply for full membership and that is not what most people want.
Quote:
View Post
And you think that the SVP can't russell up the required 50K....
I never said that. And I do not doubt that they will. I just said they have to gather the required signatures. I also say that most laws passed without any one objecting, many passed with only a few objecting, and some passed with more than 50k objecting but they were still the minority. Which brings us to the final question: Will they win the vote in the end, will the people follow the SVP/UDC to the very end, will it be like 499 years ago? Very hard to tell, my magic 8 ball says "Reply hazy try again" over and over. It is so much easier to tell the fate of the Cubs in the World Series - once again, as allways "Don't count on it".
__________________
PLAYER 1 ENTER YOUR NAME:_

Last edited by aSwissInTheUS; 06.08.2014 at 14:14.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank aSwissInTheUS for this useful post:
  #957  
Old 06.08.2014, 14:24
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,241
Groaned at 179 Times in 154 Posts
Thanked 17,588 Times in 7,465 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Under-estimating? Everyone was laughing at them here a few months back and defending their right to freedom of speech.
Isn't laughing at somebody essentially the same as under-estimating them?

Assuming the stupidity of your opponent creates a false sense of security.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #958  
Old 06.08.2014, 14:32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Aachen
Posts: 308
Groaned at 58 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 260 Times in 131 Posts
SteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of many
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Methinks you are falling into the trap of underestimating their tactics, assuming they are in disarray, and being blind to their next moves.
They are not varying much the theme:

It will be something about the EU, immigrants and how to cook the autoctonous Helvetic pizza, the one that Freysinger likes to eat for his supper in the upper Valais.

4 formaggi:

Generic Goat Cheese, Raclette Valle D'Herens, Raclette Valle D'Anniviers, and a very Swiss brie + a glass of Petite Arvine.
Reply With Quote
  #959  
Old 06.08.2014, 14:39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Aachen
Posts: 308
Groaned at 58 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 260 Times in 131 Posts
SteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of many
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Isn't laughing at somebody essentially the same as under-estimating them?

Assuming the stupidity of your opponent creates a false sense of security.
You may be right,

let's look at the bright sight:

Satyric sketches are getting so easy the comedian does not even need to think.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank SteAlka for this useful post:
  #960  
Old 06.08.2014, 14:43
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 11,210
Groaned at 122 Times in 98 Posts
Thanked 13,397 Times in 6,656 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Isn't laughing at somebody essentially the same as under-estimating them?

Assuming the stupidity of your opponent creates a false sense of security.
Which is the point I absolutely made. Before and after the voting. I was called an alarmist and soviet, the soviet label was you btw

Under-estimating the danger of manipulative, fear inducing campaign and its effects it has on population that is not motivated to get their facts on consequences is a costly and dangerous ostrich maneuvre.

The only way how to give time for people to step up interest and education and have the campaign pushed for better quality in order to deliver facts to voters, in media, etc. is to clip SVPs only ammunition, which is their incorrect and damaging rhetorics (banned in other countries, there is a legislature there for that). Nothing else. It is fear, a knee jerk reaction, that makes people not go after facts they need in order to vote rationally and take responsibility for what their direct democracy actually means. Fear is not rational, fact checking and need for it, is. SVP operates in the arena of irrational and people are too slow to see the connections.
__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H.Pestalozzi

ἀρχὴ ἥμισυ παντός
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank MusicChick for this useful post:
Reply

Tags
erasmus, european union, fmop, horizon, immigration, masseneinwanderung, vote




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Immigration status of Non-EU starting a business in Switzerland alesco Business & entrepreneur 28 09.11.2015 14:26
Masseneinwanderung [Immigration] vote - Facts Slaphead Swiss politics/news 4 29.06.2014 19:59
Is there any age limits to starting a PhD? Breezy Family matters/health 15 18.11.2012 01:23
Immigration limits in the UK: what about scientists? HashBrown International affairs/politics 5 08.10.2010 00:29


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 19:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0