Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1461  
Old 21.08.2015, 15:20
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
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.
No lines to read between. No proposal (that I know of) was submitted to the Joint Committee. Not "request", no "love letter", no "doctors slip" ... a proposal!

And again, if the EU is refusing to consider even considering to negotiate an Agreement - well Adieu!!
Reply With Quote
  #1462  
Old 21.08.2015, 15:28
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
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.
Look, imo it would be naive to think that the EU top bureaucrats are not aware of the fact that the Swiss Federal Government has been dominated by figures friendly to the EU and bringing ever-closer union between us and the EU. Likewise it would be known to these heads of the EU that the adoption of the MEI would be going against the ideological and political grain of the majority of Swiss Federal politicians, and in knowing this the EU would be extremely comfortable in denying any and all attempts at renegotiation - because they know full well that the Swiss Federal Government are not for implementing the MEI and will be very, VERY happy with a rejection of negotiation from the EU.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank EAB for this useful post:
  #1463  
Old 21.08.2015, 15:30
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St Gallen Kanton
Posts: 929
Groaned at 224 Times in 157 Posts
Thanked 1,920 Times in 877 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
Take a look at the "point" I was raising - it was about a proposal being submitted to the Joint Committee as per article 18.

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.

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.

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 ... ".


For gods sake, give it up.


Switzerland asked the EU to meet to discuss the outcome of the referendum, the EU refused. Both did what they were contractually able to do, otherwise the other party would be kicking up a whole load of mess about it.


Switzerland submitted a request to meet and discuss (=renegotiate) the FMOP principle, the EU, (within their rights as per the contract the swissies signed), refused.


And actually, one party violating the terms of the contract does not automatically nullify the contract, unless this is a clause within the contract. If it isn't a clause of the contract, the offending party is simply violating (not breaking) the contract and must pay whatever penalty the contract stipulates (if any).


If your Swisscom contract had that clause, and the contract does not specifically say the Swisscom joint committee has to meet you to discuss it, Swisscom is well within their rights to just ignore it, or to simply reply 'Non'. This contract (and, it seems, the swissy/EU one) only stipulates how the process is begun, not the practical steps the process has to go through.


"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!"


Wrong again. A change to a contract has to be countersigned by both parties, in which case it becomes an AMENDMENT or an ADDENDUM or possibly a RIDER or even a SUPERCEDING CLAUSE. A VIOLATION is when one party acts against the terms set out in the signed CONTRACT, which SWITZERLAND would be doing if it MODIFIES the FMOP without the signed agreement to the changes BY THE EU.


Stop capitalising random words.
Reply With Quote
  #1464  
Old 21.08.2015, 15:46
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,564
Groaned at 246 Times in 212 Posts
Thanked 11,559 Times in 6,312 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
Take a look at the "point" I was raising - it was about a proposal being submitted to the Joint Committee as per article 18.




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.



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.



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 ... ".

About "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 ... "


But they did not write a letter first?


They presented the proposal at the JC meeting in June 2014. According to the EU report "Council conclusions on a homogeneous extended single market and EU relations with Non-EU Western European countries" see Paragraph 45, "implementation concept presented by the Swiss Government in June 2014" link here
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedoc.../er/146315.pdf

So a proposal was made to the JC in accordance with the Agreement.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1465  
Old 21.08.2015, 15:54
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
For gods sake, give it up.
Thanks but no thanks.

Quote:
Switzerland asked the EU to meet to discuss the outcome of the referendum, the EU refused.
More or less ... that has already been clearly stated by myself showing the letters etc ... (your welcome).

Quote:
Both did what they were contractually able to do, otherwise the other party would be kicking up a whole load of mess about it.
Not necessarily so.

Quote:
Switzerland submitted a request to meet and discuss (=renegotiate) the FMOP principle, the EU, (within their rights as per the contract the swissies signed), refused.
As I already laid out - the Swiss FOM wrote a letter to the EU's EEAS. The EU replied with a rejection to meet "to exchange views on the matter and to discuss possible next steps.".

Quote:
And actually, one party violating the terms of the contract does not automatically nullify the contract, unless this is a clause within the contract. If it isn't a clause of the contract, the offending party is simply violating (not breaking) the contract and must pay whatever penalty the contract stipulates (if any).
Yep. That too has already been clearly stated by yours truly.

Quote:
If your Swisscom contract had that clause, and the contract does not specifically say the Swisscom joint committee has to meet you to discuss it, Swisscom is well within their rights to just ignore it, or to simply reply 'Non'. This contract (and, it seems, the swissy/EU one) only stipulates how the process is begun, not the practical steps the process has to go through.
Actually the Joint Committee is mandated to deal with "the management and proper application of the Agreement. To that end it shall issue recommendations. It shall take decisions in the circumstances provided for in the Agreement. The Joint Committee shall reach its decisions by mutual agreement."(Article 14)

Sounds to me like they do have some actual duties to perform in regards to management and decision making. Now take again article 18 which states "If a Contracting Party wishes to have this Agreement revised, it shall submit a proposal to that effect to the Joint Committee.".

Now are you suggesting that the proposal has been submitted? - If so what was it and what became of it? Or are you suggesting that the Joint Committee is not obligated to do anything about proposals which are submitted!?

Quote:
"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!"

Wrong again. A change to a contract has to be countersigned by both parties, in which case it becomes an AMENDMENT or an ADDENDUM or possibly a RIDER or even a SUPERCEDING CLAUSE. A VIOLATION is when one party acts against the terms set out in the signed CONTRACT, which SWITZERLAND would be doing if it MODIFIES the FMOP without the signed agreement to the changes BY THE EU.
Ok, I should have worded this differently. What I meant to say was: "Any wished for change to any contract is a "violation" to the existing terms of the currently active contract - that is why it's a CHANGE and that's why the contract must be RENEGOTIATED!"

Why would Switzerland modify the FMOP without the agreement of the EU!?
Reply With Quote
  #1466  
Old 21.08.2015, 16:06
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,564
Groaned at 246 Times in 212 Posts
Thanked 11,559 Times in 6,312 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
Thanks but no thanks.



More or less ... that has already been clearly stated by myself showing the letters etc ... (your welcome).



Not necessarily so.



As I already laid out - the Swiss FOM wrote a letter to the EU's EEAS. The EU replied with a rejection to meet "to exchange views on the matter and to discuss possible next steps.".



Yep. That too has already been clearly stated by yours truly.



Actually the Joint Committee is mandated to deal with "the management and proper application of the Agreement. To that end it shall issue recommendations. It shall take decisions in the circumstances provided for in the Agreement. The Joint Committee shall reach its decisions by mutual agreement."(Article 14)

Sounds to me like they do have some actual duties to perform in regards to management and decision making. Now take again article 18 which states "If a Contracting Party wishes to have this Agreement revised, it shall submit a proposal to that effect to the Joint Committee.".

Now are you suggesting that the proposal has been submitted? - If so what was it and what became of it? Or are you suggesting that the Joint Committee is not obligated to do anything about proposals which are submitted!?



Ok, I should have worded this differently. What I meant to say was: "Any wished for change to any contract is a "violation" to the existing terms of the currently active contract - that is why it's a CHANGE and that's why the contract must be RENEGOTIATED!"

Why would Switzerland modify the FMOP without the agreement of the EU!?


About "Now are you suggesting that the proposal has been submitted? - If so what was it and what became of it? Or are you suggesting that the Joint Committee is not obligated to do anything about proposals which are submitted!?"


It seems according to the paragraph 45 that I quoted a proposal was submitted to the JC June 2014, all this time I had believed you that no proposal was ever submitted.
The same paragraph explicitly confirms that the July 2014 EU letter was a rejection of the request to renegotiate (not a rejection of a meeting request).
Apparently the Joint committee did do something with the proposal, they rejected it - actually not sure this is correct. It looks like they failed to come to a mutual agreement (i.e. they did not accept the change proposed). Consequently the Swiss wrote a letter escalating the issue which the EU replied to refusing the request.



You should read paragraph 45 it explains the situation better than I can and will enable you to correct your false assumptions.
Reply With Quote
  #1467  
Old 21.08.2015, 16:07
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

But they did not write a letter first?


They presented the proposal at the JC meeting in June 2014. According to the EU report "Council conclusions on a homogeneous extended single market and EU relations with Non-EU Western European countries" see Paragraph 45, "implementation concept presented by the Swiss Government in June 2014" link here
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedoc.../er/146315.pdf

So a proposal was made to the JC in accordance with the Agreement.
Thanks! That's a start!
So here they speak of an "implementation concept" and "the planned implementation of the result of the vote". I am not aware that by this time the Swiss Federal Government had already formulated a comprehensive implementation "plan" or "concept" so I have to assume that the Swiss Federal Government basically mandated the Swiss representative to the Joint Committee to simply read to the Joint Committee the text of the constitutional amendment and leave it at that - probably with a hint of "I am so very sorry you EU representatives have to put up with this annoying Swiss democracy".

That link took forever to open so I am posting the text here:

"The Council has taken note of the outcome of the vote in Switzerland on a popular initiative"Against Mass Immigration" on 9 February 2014, as well as of the implementation concept presented by the Swiss Government in June 2014. While fully respecting the internal democratic procedures of Switzerland, the Council reconfirms the negative reply in July 2014 to the Swiss request to renegotiate the Agreement. It considers that the free movement of persons is a fundamental pillar of EU policy and that the internal market and its four freedoms are indivisible. The Council confirms its view that the planned implementation of the result of the vote threatens to undermine the core of EU-Switzerland relations, namely the so-called "bilateral I agreements", and casts doubt on the association of Switzerland to the Schengen and Dublin acquis and the participation of Switzerland in certain EU programmes."
Reply With Quote
  #1468  
Old 21.08.2015, 16:11
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
all this time I had believed you that no proposal was ever submitted.
You should read paragraph 45 it explains the situation better than I can and will enable you to correct your false assumptions.
Well, that was insofar as I knew, and most of the time I was asking if there had been a proposal submitted, and the other times I said things like "afaik" etc .... It's definitely not something which is well know of - so good find on that document ... !
Reply With Quote
  #1469  
Old 21.08.2015, 16:24
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,564
Groaned at 246 Times in 212 Posts
Thanked 11,559 Times in 6,312 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
Thanks! That's a start!
So here they speak of an "implementation concept" and "the planned implementation of the result of the vote". I am not aware that by this time the Swiss Federal Government had already formulated a comprehensive implementation "plan" or "concept" so I have to assume that the Swiss Federal Government basically mandated the Swiss representative to the Joint Committee to simply read to the Joint Committee the text of the constitutional amendment and leave it at that - probably with a hint of "I am so very sorry you EU representatives have to put up with this annoying Swiss democracy".

That link took forever to open so I am posting the text here:

"The Council has taken note of the outcome of the vote in Switzerland on a popular initiative"Against Mass Immigration" on 9 February 2014, as well as of the implementation concept presented by the Swiss Government in June 2014. While fully respecting the internal democratic procedures of Switzerland, the Council reconfirms the negative reply in July 2014 to the Swiss request to renegotiate the Agreement. It considers that the free movement of persons is a fundamental pillar of EU policy and that the internal market and its four freedoms are indivisible. The Council confirms its view that the planned implementation of the result of the vote threatens to undermine the core of EU-Switzerland relations, namely the so-called "bilateral I agreements", and casts doubt on the association of Switzerland to the Schengen and Dublin acquis and the participation of Switzerland in certain EU programmes."

This Agreement article 18 that you like to quote does not define what is meant by "a proposal" so basically the Swiss Govt. are free to label anything as "a proposal".


I cannot accept the Swiss Govt. did an intentionally poor job as you imply.
As Wolly wrote "Hardly and impossible as the FDPx2/CVPx1//BDPx1/SVPx1/SPx2 coalition includes a variety of political positions too diverse for such things "


So we have cleared up the following points;
  1. There was a proposal to the JC in June 14.
  2. The EU letter of July 14 was a rejection of renegotiation; not a meeting rejection.
Reply With Quote
  #1470  
Old 21.08.2015, 16:33
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 7,770
Groaned at 64 Times in 58 Posts
Thanked 11,194 Times in 5,088 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
Well, that was insofar as I knew, and most of the time I was asking if there had been a proposal submitted, and the other times I said things like "afaik" etc .... It's definitely not something which is well know of - so good find on that document ... !
Can you shortly explain:
What are the consequences and how does it mater:
A) They did submit a proposal.
B) They did NOT submit a proposal.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank aSwissInTheUS for this useful post:
  #1471  
Old 21.08.2015, 16:34
Kosti's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oranje County
Posts: 488
Groaned at 27 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 871 Times in 364 Posts
Kosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of [immigration limits] Vote Already Starting...

I predict that this time around the SVP will make some noise, but in effect abstain from putting serious money behind opposing the return to the FMoP and bilaterals. More fringe elements of the party will be loud and be prominently featured in the media, and the backlash to their standard xenophobic bleating might actually help this pass.

The EU called Blocher and cos bluff big time. Now all the big industrial and agribusiness money that forms the heart of the SVP establishment is going to pray that they can get away with put up a token resistance until the initiative brings back the FMoP, and then bank the resulting outrage amongst the nativist part of the electorate for future federal elections.

For the record, Germany WAS willing to let Greece go off the euro. Which is why Greece capitulated to EVERY single demand. To imagine that CH will be treated any different is to be stuck in a Heidi-bubble©.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Kosti for this useful post:
  #1472  
Old 21.08.2015, 16:41
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
This Agreement article 18 that you like to quote does not define what is meant by "a proposal" so basically the Swiss Govt. are free to label anything as "a proposal".
True. But then what does the word "proposal" mean?

Oxford Dictionary: "A plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration or discussion by others:"

In light of that which one of these two would be a "proposal":

1. "This is to let you know that the Swiss people have decided on the following constitutional amendment.....which conflicts with our current Agreement. Good day."

2. "This is to let you know that the Swiss people have decided on the following constitutional amendment.....which conflicts with our current Agreement. Here is our plan/suggestion for overcoming this conflict ....."

Quote:
I cannot accept the Swiss Govt. did an intentionally poor job as you imply.
As Wolly wrote "Hardly and impossible as the FDPx2/CVPx1//BDPx1/SVPx1/SPx2 coalition includes a variety of political positions too diverse for such things "
I don't understand what's the issue? The only party for the MEI was the SVP. Doing the least possible is something that imo would be very easy to get away with. But, ok, maybe they really did do all they possibly could ... but I don't think I trust them that much.

Quote:
So we have cleared up the following points;
[LIST=1][*]There was a proposal to the JC in June 14.
There was something to the JC ... an "implementation concept" of unknown content.

Quote:
[*]The EU letter of July 14 was a rejection of renegotiation; not a meeting rejection.

The request from the FOM was to "meet" for to "exchange views on the matter and to discuss possible next steps". That request to meet was rejected by the EU.
Of course the EU is open to meet about anything else - other than renegotiating anything that is - LOL!! Meet for a beer. Meet for a coffee, or for game of tennis ... sure ... EU is there.
Reply With Quote
  #1473  
Old 21.08.2015, 16:47
Kosti's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oranje County
Posts: 488
Groaned at 27 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 871 Times in 364 Posts
Kosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
True. But then what does the word "proposal" mean?

Oxford Dictionary: "A plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration or discussion by others:"

In light of that which one of these two would be a "proposal":

1. "This is to let you know that the Swiss people have decided on the following constitutional amendment.....which conflicts with our current Agreement. Good day."

2. "This is to let you know that the Swiss people have decided on the following constitutional amendment.....which conflicts with our current Agreement. Here is our plan/suggestion for overcoming this conflict ....."



I don't understand what's the issue? The only party for the MEI was the SVP. Doing the least possible is something that imo would be very easy to get away with. But, ok, maybe they really did do all they possibly could ... but I don't think I trust them that much.



There was something to the JC ... an "implementation concept" of unknown content.




The request from the FOM was to "meet" for to "exchange views on the matter and to discuss possible next steps". That request to meet was rejected by the EU.
Of course the EU is open to meet about anything else - other than renegotiating anything that is - LOL!! Meet for a beer. Meet for a coffee, or for game of tennis ... sure ... EU is there.

Not only do you keep repeating the same meaningless argument over and over, but this is perhaps the fourth set of posts on this thread in the same vein.

Can you ask the mods if they will let you change your username to BrokenRecord
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Kosti for this useful post:
This user groans at Kosti for this post:
  #1474  
Old 21.08.2015, 16:51
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
Can you shortly explain:
What are the consequences and how does it mater:
A) They did submit a proposal.
B) They did NOT submit a proposal.
A) They did submit a proposal.

1. Protocol as outlined by the Agreement has been followed correctly. - Federal Government is doing their job (at least to a minimal degree).
2. Proposal would have to have been accepted or rejected - in any case it would have to be discussed and/or deliberated on. This is in itself a form of negotiation - at least is a very preliminary way.

B) They did NOT submit a proposal.

1. Opposite of the above.

Overall it's a matter of asking "What was the proposal" and "What was the outcome of the submission of the proposal".
We now know what the outcome was, but we still don't know what the proposal was - if in fact it was a proposal and not just an FYI-styled announcement.
Reply With Quote
  #1475  
Old 21.08.2015, 17:01
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,564
Groaned at 246 Times in 212 Posts
Thanked 11,559 Times in 6,312 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
True. But then what does the word "proposal" mean?

Oxford Dictionary: "A plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration or discussion by others:"

In light of that which one of these two would be a "proposal":

1. "This is to let you know that the Swiss people have decided on the following constitutional amendment.....which conflicts with our current Agreement. Good day."

2. "This is to let you know that the Swiss people have decided on the following constitutional amendment.....which conflicts with our current Agreement. Here is our plan/suggestion for overcoming this conflict ....."



I don't understand what's the issue? The only party for the MEI was the SVP. Doing the least possible is something that imo would be very easy to get away with. But, ok, maybe they really did do all they possibly could ... but I don't think I trust them that much.



There was something to the JC ... an "implementation concept" of unknown content.




The request from the FOM was to "meet" for to "exchange views on the matter and to discuss possible next steps". That request to meet was rejected by the EU.
Of course the EU is open to meet about anything else - other than renegotiating anything that is - LOL!! Meet for a beer. Meet for a coffee, or for game of tennis ... sure ... EU is there.
About "The request from the FOM was to "meet" for to "exchange views on the matter and to discuss possible next steps". That request to meet was rejected by the EU. "

From paragraph 45 of the EU Council Minutes. "the Council reconfirms the negative reply in July 2014 to the Swiss request to renegotiate the Agreement."
Reply With Quote
  #1476  
Old 21.08.2015, 17:05
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 "The request from the FOM was to "meet" for to "exchange views on the matter and to discuss possible next steps". That request to meet was rejected by the EU. "

From paragraph 45 of the EU Council Minutes. "the Council reconfirms the negative reply in July 2014 to the Swiss request to renegotiate the Agreement."
Again, the EU can call the request by the Swiss whatever it likes, that doesn't change the wording of the Swiss request.

FYI I would agree that the Swiss were asking to meet for renegotiation of the FMOP Agreement without having actually used the word "negotiate" or "renegotiate".
Reply With Quote
  #1477  
Old 21.08.2015, 17:21
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,564
Groaned at 246 Times in 212 Posts
Thanked 11,559 Times in 6,312 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
Again, the EU can call the request by the Swiss whatever it likes, that doesn't change the wording of the Swiss request.

FYI I would agree that the Swiss were asking to meet for renegotiation of the FMOP Agreement without having actually used the word "negotiate" or "renegotiate".
The wording of the Swiss request from the link you kindly provided "Therefore as already announced at the Joint Committee meeting of June2014, I confirm Switzerland’s request to revise the Agreement in accordance with its article 18."


Very clearly written and uses the word "request". In their reply the EU also used the word "request" and wrote they could not agree with the request.


Interesting that you believe the letter was refusing a meeting when the people who actually wrote the letter believe they were refusing the "request to revise the Agreement"
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1478  
Old 21.08.2015, 17:32
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 22,203
Groaned at 1,166 Times in 913 Posts
Thanked 25,066 Times in 12,005 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of [immigration limits] Vote Already Starting...

Meanwhile:

"Schengen free movement 'may be in danger', says German minister"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34016448

Tom
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
  #1479  
Old 21.08.2015, 17:34
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 wording of the Swiss request from the link you kindly provided "Therefore as already announced at the Joint Committee meeting of June2014, I confirm Switzerland’s request to revise the Agreement in accordance with its article 18."


Very clearly written and uses the word "request". In their reply the EU also used the word "request" and wrote they could not agree with the request.


Interesting that you believe the letter was refusing a meeting when the people who actually wrote the letter believe they were refusing the "request to revise the Agreement"

Huh!?!? Ok, this is just getting confusing.
There are two different, separate instances here.

1. The "proposal" to the Joint Committee and the reply to that "proposal"
2. The letter from the FOM to the EEAS and the reply from the VP of the EC.

1. We don't know (as of yet) what that "proposal" was exactly since we (as of yet) do not have the text. That "proposal" was rejected by the EC.

2. We know the contents of both the letter from the FOM as well as the reply from the VP of the EC. The letter from the FOM states the request to "meet" for to "exchange views on the matter and to discuss possible next steps". This request was rejected in the letter from the VP of the EC.

I hope that's the last time I have to repeat that!!
Reply With Quote
  #1480  
Old 21.08.2015, 17:36
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 [immigration limits] Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Meanwhile:

"Schengen free movement 'may be in danger', says German minister"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34016448

Tom
Tick-Tock ... seems like it's only a matter of time ...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank EAB 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 11:27.


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