Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1441  
Old 20.08.2015, 18:33
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 7,772
Groaned at 64 Times in 58 Posts
Thanked 11,204 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 [immigration limits] Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
To pass, a majority of the cantons (13 1/2) have to say yes.
This means at least 5 cantons have to change.
Mmm. aSwissInTheUS is a clear idiot. The majority of the cantons is twelve!
It is only 3 1/2 cantons which have to change their mind.
BE,AR,SO,BL are possible "swing states".
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank aSwissInTheUS for this useful post:
  #1442  
Old 20.08.2015, 18:47
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St Gallen Kanton
Posts: 933
Groaned at 225 Times in 158 Posts
Thanked 1,957 Times in 893 Posts
J2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
They are not refusing any change in particular since, afaik, there has been no proposal submitted to the Joint Committee. Instead what the EU has done is refuse to negotiate at all - period!



And because we did not do it before we cannot do it now!? Is that some kind of galactic law I have not heard of yet!?


>They're refusing to negotiate a violation of the terms of the contract. In much the same way that Swisscom will not agree to negotiate you paying the 20Fr that you have contractually agreed to do so.


>You can, but not regarding a contract you've already signed.
Reply With Quote
  #1443  
Old 20.08.2015, 18:57
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,623 Times in 7,484 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 [immigration limits] Vote Already Starting...

Methinks the Eu was bluffing.

the EU has now clearly shown that it is not willing to let Greece go, even though that country is a bottomless put as far as money is concerned and is not going to change soon.

If they won't drop Geece, they're unlikely to drop their special relationship with CH.

So maybe the CH negotiators should have called the EU's bluff and threatenbed to tear up the contract and walk away if the EU wouildn't negotiate. It seems to me that CH was not playing its cards to its full ability, and not surprisingly so as the Bundesrat was aganst this initiative from the beginning.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #1444  
Old 20.08.2015, 20:38
Jim2007's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kt. Bern
Posts: 2,802
Groaned at 55 Times in 51 Posts
Thanked 3,036 Times in 1,532 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 [immigration limits] Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
If they won't drop Geece, they're unlikely to drop their special relationship with CH.
Yes, but Greece is one of their own and they have always been will to go the extra mile for their own.

Quote:
View Post
So maybe the CH negotiators should have called the EU's bluff and threatenbed to tear up the contract and walk away if the EU wouildn't negotiate. It seems to me that CH was not playing its cards to its full ability, and not surprisingly so as the Bundesrat was aganst this initiative from the beginning.
Well that is what Greece thought and look how well that worked out. It will be a long day before Athens every get to decide anything on their own again.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jim2007 for this useful post:
  #1445  
Old 20.08.2015, 21:01
Jim2007's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kt. Bern
Posts: 2,802
Groaned at 55 Times in 51 Posts
Thanked 3,036 Times in 1,532 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
This is another way of saying that only if BOTH party's wish to renegotiate that there may actually be some renegotiation possible. This is hardly logical.
How is it not logical??? you only have the possibility of an agreement, if both parties are willing to negotiate... There is nothing in the agreement that requires either party to negotiate a new agreement and rightly so as it would a complete waste of time if both parties were not interested in having a new agreement.

Quote:
View Post
As an independent nation we should be able to make trade agreements with other countries without it having anything whatsoever to do with immigration, jurisprudence and a host of other things!!
And no one is stopping us doing so, but by the same toke they are not required to make such agreements with us if they don't want to. It works both ways.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Jim2007 for this useful post:
  #1446  
Old 20.08.2015, 21:23
EAB EAB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bern, Switzerland
Posts: 479
Groaned at 118 Times in 49 Posts
Thanked 403 Times in 194 Posts
EAB has made some interesting contributions
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
How is it not logical??? you only have the possibility of an agreement, if both parties are willing to negotiate... There is nothing in the agreement that requires either party to negotiate a new agreement and rightly so as it would a complete waste of time if both parties were not interested in having a new agreement.

And no one is stopping us doing so, but by the same toke they are not required to make such agreements with us if they don't want to. It works both ways.
What proposal was submitted to the Joint Committee and what was the outcome!?

Seems to me like some people here don't comprehend the Article 18. It clearly states that "If a Contracting Party wishes to have this Agreement revised, it shall submit a proposal to that effect to the Joint Committee." - and this is in effect what is meant by bringing the EU to the negotiation table since the Joint Committee is comprised of representatives of both the EU and Switzerland! The Joint Committee is then to make a decision on this proposal and thereby the negotiation has been completed! Has this process occurred!? Has this process even begun!? Not that I am aware.
Reply With Quote
  #1447  
Old 20.08.2015, 21:28
EAB EAB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bern, Switzerland
Posts: 479
Groaned at 118 Times in 49 Posts
Thanked 403 Times in 194 Posts
EAB has made some interesting contributions
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
>They're refusing to negotiate a violation of the terms of the contract. In much the same way that Swisscom will not agree to negotiate you paying the 20Fr that you have contractually agreed to do so.


>You can, but not regarding a contract you've already signed.
If my contract with Swisscom had a clause which stated that "If a Contracting Party wishes to have this Agreement revised, it shall submit a proposal to that effect to Swisscom's Joint Committee." then I would be well in my rights to proceed in submitting my proposal to Swisscom and following that it would be absolutely logical to assume that they would then take a decision on whether or not to accept my proposal. Swisscom don't offer such a clause in their contracts (that I am aware of) so the comparison is of no use to me.

Any change to any contract is a "violation" to the terms of the contract - that why it's a CHANGE and that's why the contract must be RENEGOTIATED!!
Reply With Quote
  #1448  
Old 20.08.2015, 21:53
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,580
Groaned at 249 Times in 215 Posts
Thanked 11,601 Times in 6,335 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
What proposal was submitted to the Joint Committee and what was the outcome!?

Seems to me like some people here don't comprehend the Article 18. It clearly states that "If a Contracting Party wishes to have this Agreement revised, it shall submit a proposal to that effect to the Joint Committee." - and this is in effect what is meant by bringing the EU to the negotiation table since the Joint Committee is comprised of representatives of both the EU and Switzerland! The Joint Committee is then to make a decision on this proposal and thereby the negotiation has been completed! Has this process occurred!? Has this process even begun!? Not that I am aware.


The process did begin, I have posted this before but anyway;
Switzerland sent a formal letter to the EU External Action Service on 7 July 2014, explaining that the new constitutional article arising from the vote of 9 February was incompatible with the existing agreement between the European Union and the Confederation on the free movement of people, and requesting a renegotiation of the treaty.

After consulting the member states, Lady Ashton, the EU's High Representative for foreign policy, replied in a letter addressed to President Burkhalter that "the European Union was not able to respond positively to his request".
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1449  
Old 20.08.2015, 21:56
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,580
Groaned at 249 Times in 215 Posts
Thanked 11,601 Times in 6,335 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
*Yawwwwn* .... nope ... and at the end of the day all votes count equally - to me anyway.

*Yawwwwn* ?? I am completely defeated by your sophisticated debating skills.
Reply With Quote
  #1450  
Old 21.08.2015, 10:18
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 5,153
Groaned at 160 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 6,569 Times in 3,373 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of [immigration limits] Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Yeah that would work great. In the same way that the Greeks sent Tsipras to negotiate "because he thought he could do better, so let him have at it".

And then he "cleaned up the mess he created" with yet another (possbily avoidable) memorandum.
Quite likely, at least the first part. However, it's the only way to shut him up for good, with the way things are handled he will keep saying it was handled badly, the left* didn't really try, too much time wasted, yadda yadda.

*Since SVP is the rightmost party, everybody else is on the left, including FDP

Quote:
View Post
Methinks the Eu was bluffing.

the EU has now clearly shown that it is not willing to let Greece go, even though that country is a bottomless put as far as money is concerned and is not going to change soon.

If they won't drop Geece, they're unlikely to drop their special relationship with CH.

So maybe the CH negotiators should have called the EU's bluff and threatenbed to tear up the contract and walk away if the EU wouildn't negotiate. It seems to me that CH was not playing its cards to its full ability, and not surprisingly so as the Bundesrat was aganst this initiative from the beginning.
Greece did exactly what you suggest CH should: they bluffed and got called because obviously Greece has much more to lose than the EU. The same applies to CH/EU, a swiss bluff would also get called.

Last edited by Urs Max; 21.08.2015 at 10:28.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Urs Max for this useful post:
  #1451  
Old 21.08.2015, 12:56
EAB EAB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bern, Switzerland
Posts: 479
Groaned at 118 Times in 49 Posts
Thanked 403 Times in 194 Posts
EAB has made some interesting contributions
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
The process did begin, I have posted this before but anyway;
Switzerland sent a formal letter to the EU External Action Service on 7 July 2014, explaining that the new constitutional article arising from the vote of 9 February was incompatible with the existing agreement between the European Union and the Confederation on the free movement of people, and requesting a renegotiation of the treaty.

After consulting the member states, Lady Ashton, the EU's High Representative for foreign policy, replied in a letter addressed to President Burkhalter that "the European Union was not able to respond positively to his request".
I am aware that this took place, but this is not submitting a proposal to the Joint Committee.

Nevertheless I went ahead and found the actual letters which went between the Swiss Federal Office for Migration and the EU's European Externat Action Service.
Here is the letter from the Swiss FOM: https://www.eda.admin.ch/content/dam...ren-FZA_EN.pdf

Here is the letter (reply) from the EU:
https://www.eda.admin.ch/content/dam...-7-2014_EN.pdf

The most interesting thing to me about the letter from the FOM is this bit:
"Therefore, as already announced at the Joint Committee meeting of June 2014, I confirm Switzerland’s request to revise the Agreement, in accordance with its article 18."

This clearly shows that at the highest levels of Swiss government article 18 is indeed legitimate and is being acted on. This also denotes that there was indeed a "announcement" of some sorts at a Joint Committee meeting in June 2014. - Was this a proposal or a mere FYI-style mention of the existence of the new Constitutional amendment!?

The request from the FOM was:
"I would appreciate if we could meet at your earliest convenience to exchange views on the matter and to discuss possible next steps."

This seems rather casual and relaxed - as well as very general. Basically asking to sit down for a chat.

The reply from the EU comes down to this one line:
"the EU is not in a position to agree with your request."

The "request" by the Swiss FOM was to "meet ... to exchange views on the matter and to discuss possible next steps" - so the EU is really just saying it's "not in a position" to "meet" with the Swiss - aka. the EU is refusing to even begin to talk/negotiate.

I am quite certain this is just an ontop-of-the-table response and that the reality is that the EU has never actually stopped negotiating with the Swiss government. The EU has to look big, strong and tough - it has to look unmovable - otherwise, who knows ... others may get the idea that they too can be as democratic and independent as the Swiss.

In reading numerous EU press releases, memos etc.. on the FMOP agreement with Switzerland I come away with one feeling - that it's not something we should be party to. It's far to brittle and if the EU is THAT unwilling to negotiate it, we should be done with it.

Interestingly enough there is also this notion that Switzerland could in fact bring into effect an implementation which goes against the FMOP Agreement without actually terminating the Agreement. In other words, the Agreement can be terminated by either party at any time but if either party were to implement legislation which contradicts the Agreement that would not be the same as terminating, or cancelling, the Agreement. It would be up to the disgruntled party to actually do the cancelling if the other party has not already done so. It's not some sort of automated procedure. There isn't anything in the Agreement which stipulates that the Agreement must be cancelled if it is not respected.

What's also clear is that at the time (21.5.2000) that the FMOP was agreed on by the Swiss people they were told that we could be expecting something to the magnitude of 8000 - 10'000 people immigrating to Switzerland per year - that has now increased nearly 10 fold on average. It's obvious that the reality and repercussions of the Agreement have changed for Switzerland and therefore is it really any wonder that we might need to fine tune it from time to time!? - I think not!
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank EAB for this useful post:
  #1452  
Old 21.08.2015, 13:33
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,623 Times in 7,484 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 [immigration limits] Vote Already Starting...

No agreement stands in stone for all time.

There will surely come a time to fine tune other aspects of the agreement, and at that time the EU will have to open negotiations with Switzerland. The EU will put itself in a precarious situation if it says we are only open to negotiate our changes and not yours.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #1453  
Old 21.08.2015, 14:07
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,580
Groaned at 249 Times in 215 Posts
Thanked 11,601 Times in 6,335 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

About "I am aware that this took place" so why raise this point again.


You need to read the EU letter again!

The EU letter starts with the statement "we received a formal request to renegotiate...."
The EU letter continues "the EU is not in a position to agree with your request."


It is clear that the EU denied the request to renegotiate.


About "so the EU is really just saying it's "not in a position" to "meet" with the Swiss"
Not true, in fact the EU letter clearly states they are ready to meet, I quote "we remain at your disposal for any discussion....".


About "but this is not submitting a proposal to the Joint Committee" Indeed, this was the request to start the process by submitting the proposal to the JC. No point in submitting a proposal to the JC after that EU reply; the EU JC people were not allowed to renegotiate.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1454  
Old 21.08.2015, 14:08
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 7,772
Groaned at 64 Times in 58 Posts
Thanked 11,204 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:
Interestingly enough there is also this notion that Switzerland could in fact bring into effect an implementation which goes against the FMOP Agreement without actually terminating the Agreement. In other words, the Agreement can be terminated by either party at any time but if either party were to implement legislation which contradicts the Agreement that would not be the same as terminating, or cancelling, the Agreement. It would be up to the disgruntled party to actually do the cancelling if the other party has not already done so. It's not some sort of automated procedure. There isn't anything in the Agreement which stipulates that the Agreement must be cancelled if it is not respected.
Breaching the contract does not make it void as long as non of the parties complains. But on the other hand, both of the parties can cancel the contract any time (respecting the time limit) without any cause or reason.

Also the changes in the constitution by the MEI does not say that the FMOP has to be canceled, only that it has to be renegotiated and "adapted".
Art. 197 Item 11
Quote:
1 Völkerrechtliche Verträge, die Artikel 121a widersprechen, sind innerhalb von drei Jahren nach dessen Annahme durch Volk und Stände neu zu verhandeln und anzupassen.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank aSwissInTheUS for this useful post:
  #1455  
Old 21.08.2015, 14:15
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 5,153
Groaned at 160 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 6,569 Times in 3,373 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
What proposal was submitted to the Joint Committee and what was the outcome!?

Seems to me like some people here don't comprehend the Article 18. It clearly states that "If a Contracting Party wishes to have this Agreement revised, it shall submit a proposal to that effect to the Joint Committee." - and this is in effect what is meant by bringing the EU to the negotiation table since the Joint Committee is comprised of representatives of both the EU and Switzerland! The Joint Committee is then to make a decision on this proposal and thereby the negotiation has been completed! Has this process occurred!? Has this process even begun!? Not that I am aware.
You need to read between the lines.

Where does the treaty say such a request must be negotiated upon? If it's not mentioned no such right/obligation exists, and that's exactly what happened: the request got denied, no negotiations, case closed.
Reply With Quote
  #1456  
Old 21.08.2015, 14:58
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,623 Times in 7,484 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
You need to read between the lines.

Where does the treaty say such a request must be negotiated upon? If it's not mentioned no such right/obligation exists, and that's exactly what happened: the request got denied, no negotiations, case closed.
To me that's very much a matter of how you approach the situation.

The Bundesrat are no doubt pleased the negotiations are closed as that's what they wanted all along. How do we know that they didn't do a deal behind the doors and actually asked for this? This would be a massive betrayal of their mandate.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #1457  
Old 21.08.2015, 15:06
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 19,023
Groaned at 333 Times in 258 Posts
Thanked 11,716 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
To me that's very much a matter of how you approach the situation.

The Bundesrat are no doubt pleased the negotiations are closed as that's what they wanted all along. How do we know that they didn't do a deal behind the doors and actually asked for this? This would be a massive betrayal of their mandate.

Hardly and impossible as the FDPx2/CVPx1//BDPx1/SVPx1/SPx2 coalition includes a variety of political positions too diverse for such things
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #1458  
Old 21.08.2015, 15:09
EAB EAB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bern, Switzerland
Posts: 479
Groaned at 118 Times in 49 Posts
Thanked 403 Times in 194 Posts
EAB has made some interesting contributions
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
About "I am aware that this took place" so why raise this point again.
Take a look at the "point" I was raising - it was about a proposal being submitted to the Joint Committee as per article 18.


Quote:
You need to read the EU letter again!

The EU letter starts with the statement "we received a formal request to renegotiate...."
The EU letter continues "the EU is not in a position to agree with your request."
No actually I don't. The EU can word it any way they like, all i care about is what the FOM actually wrote - but yes, the FOM was in other words asking to begin talking about the topic (call it renegotiate) and the EU said it wouldn't do so. - Which is precisely what I have been saying. The EU did not reject a specific proposal or amendment etc, they just completely refused to even consider considering any negotiation of the Agreement.

Quote:
About "so the EU is really just saying it's "not in a position" to "meet" with the Swiss"
Not true, in fact the EU letter clearly states they are ready to meet, I quote "we remain at your disposal for any discussion....".
It is in fact completely true! The EU is refusing to "meet" with the Swiss for the requested purpose of meeting - namely "to exchange views on the matter and to discuss possible next steps.". It's great that the EU is at our disposal should we want to talk about other stuff ... "practical problems" ... but they have rejected meeting us regarding the matter for which they were contacted in the first place.

Quote:
About "but this is not submitting a proposal to the Joint Committee" Indeed, this was the request to start the process by submitting the proposal to the JC. No point in submitting a proposal to the JC after that EU reply; the EU JC people were not allowed to renegotiate.
According to the Agreement article 18 any party wishing to amend the Agreement must submit a proposal to the Joint Committee. It's pretty straightforward. Nothing in there about "FIRST, you have to write a letter to xyz informing them of the obvious and then wait for the answer you KNOW is going to come your way ... ".
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank EAB for this useful post:
  #1459  
Old 21.08.2015, 15:10
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,623 Times in 7,484 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
Hardly and impossible as the FDPx2/CVPx1//BDPx1/SVPx1/SPx2 coalition includes a variety of political positions too diverse for such things
But were all those people actually there in Brussels?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #1460  
Old 21.08.2015, 15:14
EAB EAB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bern, Switzerland
Posts: 479
Groaned at 118 Times in 49 Posts
Thanked 403 Times in 194 Posts
EAB has made some interesting contributions
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Breaching the contract does not make it void as long as non of the parties complains. But on the other hand, both of the parties can cancel the contract any time (respecting the time limit) without any cause or reason.
Correct. That is exactly what i said in the part you quoted from me.
... except for one thing ... you said "as long as non of the parties complains" - actually complaining can happen all it likes - complaining doesn't cancel the Agreement. The only thing that can cancel the Agreement is either one, or both, of the party's involved formally cancelling the Agreement - Nothing less and nothing more.

Quote:
Also the changes in the constitution by the MEI does not say that the FMOP has to be canceled, only that it has to be renegotiated and "adapted".
Art. 197 Item 11
Absolutely correct.
Reply With Quote
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 21:52.


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