|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 13, 2014 2:53:00 GMT
Are we suggesting that the electorate didn't know the possible effects or that they are stupid or that they wish to leave the agreement? I would have voted 'Yes' for both reasons.....To stop free movement and to hasten the exit. But, I don't think that the Swiss did. I think that on the day cessation of free movement with dilution of wage rates and pressure on bottom end jobs outweighed fears of upsetting Brussells. Probably they rightly think their Government will be able to arrange a fudge and mudge 'let' to allow them to do this to the East Europeans of whom many bluecollars are rightly very worried. We should do the same here. Ignore the EU complaints and very very slowly negotiate a 'let' for ourselves; depending on the EU not wishing to see us exit and the loss of our over-large contribution. Play hard ball with them and be prepared to be a serial rule breaker and non-enforcer of everything that suits us or doesn't suit us. Rely upon the labyrinthine machination of the EU to give us bags of wriggle time and appeal time, and silent shrug time....until much of the problem is away with the East Europeans all sitting in other countries...or we are out of the accursed organization altogether. As full members we dont have that option as our agreement is bound by treaty not a bilateral agreement This is the problem with referendums. They decide only part of the picture. The Swiss benefit considerably from the single market but they cannot pick and mix. Free movement of labour is an integral part of the agreement they signed up to. I don't hear the Tories wanting the end of the single market either I thought of you today. What I like about this country you view as its ruin . Watching the TV programme about Westminster registry office I wss genuinely moved by the people going through their citizenship ceremony. Many had come to the UK from countries where they had faced persecution. They found their home here. I sm glsd we are that sort of country not the monochrome inward looking Britain of the past. You are correct in that is a real divide between us. I am completely unmoved by such matters....in fact a bit the reverse. And yes, I can see your distate for the good old 'pik-n'-mix', which you will be unsurprised to learn is very much my way of achieving what I want in life. We really are hardwired with very different circuits. You are probably sensitive to rules and regulations and think it is sacrilege to 'pik-n'-mix', to be economical with truth, to avoid, evade or just blatantly flout? Yes, I am sure you do. I understand that and I really respect it if you follow it 100%....No jay-walking, no teaming and ladling with speed limits, no parking in restricted areas, no cycling on the pavement or through red lights or over pedestrian crossings; no using the office phone or 'borrowing' pens, pencils and notepads; no time-wasting conversations in office 'paid' time, no bunking off early, and naturally no inflated or adjusted expenses?? I see rules being for the guidance of the wise and strict to adherence by fools. I see many laws as an irritation and observe them more in fear of the punishment than anything else. There are many I have broken on countless occasions with not a whiff of concern other than possible but unlikely detection. I am like the man in 'The Prisoner'....."I am a free man." Of course we need rules and laws, and should observe them in the main, as befits members of a loose society of other beings. But they are neither important to me nor part of my fabric of being. I would have cheerfully bought on the black market in WW2. I used once to flout the speed limits daily and by a marked degree. I have teamed and ladled in many areas. I have never worried about Conservative or UKIP party policy, or solidarity, or singing from the same sheet. If I think they are wrong, I say so and openly. If I don't like the candidate, I not only don't work for him, but don't vote for him either....Might vote against. No qualms about doing so, even if the party loses the seat. I would never go on strike out of 'solidarity', but only if personally convinced of the necessity of it, 'to me'. Thus, I could never be a 'Brother', 'Comrade', 'Cell member' or member of most unions and some socialist parties. I note IanRobo often says, in I what I know to be genuine peturbation, how can you say that, yet Farage says this? Or, UKIP policy is 'tother? Simple. I don't really give a toss what the leader or the party say on nearly everything, as long as the general tone and tenor are in my sort of direction. I don't 'fit in' because I don't want to, and because I don't really care all that much about institutions or what people say or think. It is, I can assure you, wonderfully freeing to be like that. I can't imagine being any other way. There is, of course, a touch of anarchy about this, and I acknowledge it. What if everyone else behaved like that? I hear your cry! Well they don't, and won't, because they don't have the inner mental freedom, or the balls for it. Or, put another way, they are not so monumentally self-centred and iconoclastic. I accept that, and am unconcerned by it. The world needs that sort of person as much as it needs the hidebound and anally retentive. That was a foreward to again stating the plainly obvious point that a sovereign country can play very hard ball if it chooses to do so. Once we used to do it a lot. I approve of it, if it works. So, with the EU, I would plainly indulge in 'pik-n'-mix' and play fast and loose with all the pettifogging regulations, to suit our personal national needs of the moment, just like a number of members often do now. We must be the most prissy observers of these edicts other than perhaps Germany? If we do it subtly and circumspectly, without drawing any attention to ourselves, we could get away with a lot without causing hurt. It would be spoiled if the prissy on our own side cried 'foul' and 'grassed us up'; and I fear the 'usual suspects' amongst the 'reptiles', the BBC and the Brothers could be relied upon to do so? So, we would need to use every possible regulation for wriggle room; every appeal; every sub para, until half the Commission is mired in paperwork.....Paperwork that we would painstakingly perfect and submit in ponderous and frequent parcels, with much relating to sheet 10,094 and Cause 103/a iii/ appx 14L vi, where many such references are fictional and help to slow the process further! If we really tried to play the game on my rules we could bring the Commission to a near standstill....with that hint of...All this could go away if you grant us these very trivial concessions. That, all accompanied by a slowing down of payments, short paying, and then refusal to pay at all until all the Commission's Accounts are approved and signed off by auditors! Now many of you may huff and puff about 'Being Bad Members', 'We are bound by our Treaty Agreements', 'This sort of conduct is unbecoming to a great nation', and 'We would put ourselves outside the rule of International Law'. My response to this is plain and simple. Our Realpolitik should be devised to suit the national purpose and the present needs of the wealth creating sectors of our society.....Period! We can absorb and deflect the flak and if necessary reject the findings of commissions and courts abroad, by use of rejection, appeal, delayed 'consideration', stonewall, or good old masterly inactivity or complete disdain. In truth there is not a lot that can be done against such an attitude short of expulsion or outright war. I just don't believe any of those institutions would push it too far. They might complain, be very cross and give us the cold shoulder for decades; but, really tough attitudes usually prevail. As in divorce, 'Act First', 'Strike Hard' and use the best lawyers....It virtually always succeeds. I know you would be out of countenance with the whole philosophy and attitude underlying this Mersey......That is the enormity of the divide between us. That is why you welcome foreigners to our society, like international agreements, and see yourself as an ever widening and closer world society....Whilst I see that whole programme as utter bollocks for losers......Just as Christianity is religion for losers. I am not in any shape or form 'A Loser' and I reject utterly having my country become 'A Loser Nation', more concerned with rights and duties to outsiders and to ecology than it is to our Vital Self Interests. Those Self Interests are to me of absolute priority over everything and everybody else in the world. I am a total Hobbesian on that score. Our Interests (really 'My Interests') trump everything always and forever. No compromise. That is a real and genuine divide of the total make up of our central myth, ethic and mode of thinking and acting. We were a Great Nation once because everyone who mattered felt like me. I want to return to that state and status. COMPLETELY REVISED AND EDITED 14.12 ON 13/02/2014 |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,417
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 13, 2014 10:43:05 GMT
I can only say that you very clearly don't know me. My Labour party colleagues view me as maverick and independent minded.
The point is that no treaty or agreement can be pick and mix because everyone would want the aspects which benefit them. If you left the EU you woukd need to draw up trade agreements with other countries and they would have conditions too. You can't avoid them in todays world.
In this case Swiss voters may well dislike all aspects of the dingle market. Or they nay like the beneficial trsde arrangements without the free movement of labour conditions. But that isnt on offer simply because a single market is exactly that.
Do you seriously think a UK outside the EU would not be affected by the many trade arrangements which exist outsude and could act as a free agent outside these arrangements?
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 13, 2014 14:16:08 GMT
I have just edited, corrected and added to my long post just above this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 13, 2014 14:46:47 GMT
I can only say that you very clearly don't know me. My Labour party colleagues view me as maverick and independent minded. The point is that no treaty or agreement can be pick and mix because everyone would want the aspects which benefit them. If you left the EU you woukd need to draw up trade agreements with other countries and they would have conditions too. You can't avoid them in todays world. In this case Swiss voters may well dislike all aspects of the dingle market. Or they nay like the beneficial trsde arrangements without the free movement of labour conditions. But that isnt on offer simply because a single market is exactly that. Do you seriously think a UK outside the EU would not be affected by the many trade arrangements which exist outsude and could act as a free agent outside these arrangements? Betraying your Merseycentric outlook again there Mike |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,417
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 13, 2014 16:53:05 GMT
I can only say that you very clearly don't know me. My Labour party colleagues view me as maverick and independent minded. The point is that no treaty or agreement can be pick and mix because everyone would want the aspects which benefit them. If you left the EU you woukd need to draw up trade agreements with other countries and they would have conditions too. You can't avoid them in todays world. In this case Swiss voters may well dislike all aspects of the dingle market. Or they nay like the beneficial trsde arrangements without the free movement of labour conditions. But that isnt on offer simply because a single market is exactly that. Do you seriously think a UK outside the EU would not be affected by the many trade arrangements which exist outsude and could act as a free agent outside these arrangements? Betraying your Merseycentric outlook again there Mike hehe - I have poor eyesight and I really should stop using the mobile for these posts! Also I have Comic Sans as my chosen font which I gather is a cardinal sin |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,417
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 13, 2014 17:01:36 GMT
I know you would be out of countenance with the whole philosophy and attitude underlying this Mersey......That is the enormity of the divide between us. That is why you welcome foreigners to our society, like international agreements, and see yourself as an ever widening and closer world society....Whilst I see that whole programme as utter bollocks for losers......Just as Christianity is religion for losers. I am not in any shape or form 'A Loser' and I reject utterly having my country become 'A Loser Nation', more concerned with rights and duties to outsiders and to ecology than it is to our Vital Self Interests. Those Self Interests are to me of absolute priority over everything and everybody else in the world. I am a total Hobbesian on that score. Our Interests (really 'My Interests') trump everything always and forever. No compromise. That is a real and genuine divide of the total make up of our central myth, ethic and mode of thinking and acting. We were a Great Nation once because everyone who mattered felt like me. I want to return to that state and status. COMPLETELY REVISED AND EDITED 14.12 ON 13/02/2014 I think we have a fundamentally different view of what sort of society we want to live in. I have no great attachment to national identity. There I things I like about this country, but many of them are the things you don't like. I don;t really get the 'loser' thing at all. To me those things are what makes us civilised and exciting - the thought of living in an inward-looking environment where everyone is expected to be the same really doesn't appeal. You assume that self-interest is about things which I would regard as damaging. Self-interest needs, in today's world , to be about both ecology and having openness and good relations with others. No such thing as an 'island nation' any more. Its gone. Past. Outdated. Redundant. And your interests may not be my interests. You can't assume that everyone has the same interests. There are many social divisions which mean that your interest may diametrically go against mine. We could never return to your ideal. There are too many people about who do not feel like you and your ideal will only work if all are committed to it. Diversity can't be disinvented. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,797 
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Feb 9, 2020 16:37:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 9, 2020 16:42:46 GMT
2 referenda happened today. One was more controversial and launched by the left: That the FederalGovernment should engage in building flats (instead of supplying the construction of social flats by private companies). It received 43%, ~7% better than the left parties had got in fall, finding broad agreement in cities and French areas (unsurprising), but not as well as some lefties might have hoped for. The SubUrbs were clearly very selfish and not impressed. srf.ch/news/schweiz/abstimmungen-oberrubrik/abstimmungen/mietwohnungs-initiative/miet-initiative-abgelehnt-westschweiz-und-grosse-staedte-ueberstimmtThe second one will forbid basically any harmless joke on "the gays" (and while in theory any "discrimination of sexual orientation", in practice it will remain legal to call hetero-men "nazis", of course). Opposed only by EDU ("evangelicals") and SVP-Youth. FDP has defended its minister in Vaud. What was the outcome of the second one? |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,797
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Feb 9, 2020 16:45:44 GMT
2 referenda happened today. One was more controversial and launched by the left: That the FederalGovernment should engage in building flats (instead of supplying the construction of social flats by private companies). It received 43%, ~7% better than the left parties had got in fall, finding broad agreement in cities and French areas (unsurprising), but not as well as some lefties might have hoped for. The SubUrbs were clearly very selfish and not impressed. srf.ch/news/schweiz/abstimmungen-oberrubrik/abstimmungen/mietwohnungs-initiative/miet-initiative-abgelehnt-westschweiz-und-grosse-staedte-ueberstimmtThe second one will forbid basically any harmless joke on "the gays" (and while in theory any "discrimination of sexual orientation", in practice it will remain legal to call hetero-men "nazis", of course). Opposed only by EDU ("evangelicals") and SVP-Youth. FDP has defended its minister in Vaud. What was the outcome of the second one? 63% for PC-terror (i added in the meantime the link, see above). 80% were expected by most pundits&pollsters. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 9, 2020 16:47:41 GMT
Grim
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Feb 9, 2020 16:48:06 GMT
2 referenda happened today. One was more controversial and launched by the left: That the FederalGovernment should engage in building flats (instead of supplying the construction of social flats by private companies). It received 43%, ~7% better than the left parties had got in fall, finding broad agreement in cities and French areas (unsurprising), but not as well as some lefties might have hoped for. The SubUrbs were clearly very selfish and not impressed. srf.ch/news/schweiz/abstimmungen-oberrubrik/abstimmungen/mietwohnungs-initiative/miet-initiative-abgelehnt-westschweiz-und-grosse-staedte-ueberstimmtThe second one will forbid basically any harmless joke on "the gays" (and while in theory any "discrimination of sexual orientation", in practice it will remain legal to call hetero-men "nazis", of course). Opposed only by EDU ("evangelicals") and SVP-Youth. FDP has defended its minister in Vaud. What was the outcome of the second one? 1'413'609 (63.1%) yes to forbid 827'361 (38.9%) no to still allow 👽 |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Feb 9, 2020 16:48:52 GMT
2 referenda happened today. One was more controversial and launched by the left: That the FederalGovernment should engage in building flats (instead of supplying the construction of social flats by private companies). It received 43%, ~7% better than the left parties had got in fall, finding broad agreement in cities and French areas (unsurprising), but not as well as some lefties might have hoped for. The SubUrbs were clearly very selfish and not impressed. srf.ch/news/schweiz/abstimmungen-oberrubrik/abstimmungen/mietwohnungs-initiative/miet-initiative-abgelehnt-westschweiz-und-grosse-staedte-ueberstimmtThe second one will forbid basically any harmless joke on "the gays" (and while in theory any "discrimination of sexual orientation", in practice it will remain legal to call hetero-men "nazis", of course). Opposed only by EDU ("evangelicals") and SVP-Youth. FDP has defended its minister in Vaud. What was the outcome of the second one? Assuming my reading of that website was right, it passed with 63.1% of the vote. It won support across the country except in a handful of deeply rural cantons. The cities and French areas saw some of the biggest majorities for those in favour of that move as well. Edit: The majority in Vaud was extraordinary, over 80% for yes, and getting up towards 90% in Lausanne. Is there any particular reason why Lausanne would be so much more supportive of the move than other cities (Basel 71%, Geneva 76%, Zurich city 77%)? |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 9, 2020 17:19:42 GMT
The one on flats is curious. I am surprised to see something that looks like an obviously cantonal issue appear as a federal referendum.
A curious note from Ticino. Locarno voted in favour, every other city voted against.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,797
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Feb 9, 2020 18:06:09 GMT
Is there any particular reason why Lausanne would be so much more supportive of the move than other cities (Basel 71%, Geneva 76%, Zurich city 77%)? Lausanne is French and the French are clearly more to the left. And while Geneve has had a certain right (often economically left, so real NationalSocialists!) segment L. is a city with lots of foreign companies. There's the dominant left, a liberal&cosmopolitan bourgeoisie - and not much else. Expectable and still remarkable - and heartbreaking - are the shifts of exCatholic fortresses like Fribourg, Valais and Ticino (the latter only partly, of course). |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,797
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Feb 9, 2020 18:08:13 GMT
The one on flats is curious. I am surprised to see something that looks like an obviously cantonal issue appear as a federal referendum. I thought exactly the same (and probably also lots of opposers). |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,797
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 15, 2020 1:50:06 GMT
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,797
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 28, 2020 22:56:15 GMT
Despite my DisLike for economical referenda i have to announce one held tomorrow (to be precise: it's in the Swiss classification an "initiative", not a referendum in the strict sense): de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidgen%C3%B6ssische_Volksinitiative_%C2%ABF%C3%BCr_verantwortungsvolle_Unternehmen_%E2%80%93_zum_Schutz_von_Mensch_und_Umwelt%C2%BBSo Swiss companies would be made responsible for any social or ecological MissSteps made all over the world by them or by SubCompanies (!) or suppliers (!!). The burden of proof would be reversed!!! Despite its utopism it has received considerable support - the "cath." BishopConference and the relicts of the Reformed "Church" among them (but amusingly also SVP-UnderWallis) - and it has rather good chances to be accepted by a majority of voters (but probably not the required majority of cantons). As always the support has been declining during the campaign, here the numbers of Gfs.Bern: Trend:  PartySupport:  As expected there is a huge gap between the sexes (not uncommon in CH):  |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,797
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 29, 2020 0:24:13 GMT
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,797
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 29, 2020 16:31:41 GMT
As indicated by the OpinionPolls of Gfs.Bern (YES 2 months ago at 63%, 1 month ago at 57%) the initiative was narrowly approved - a huge success for the left -, but failed nonetheless, as most (semi)cantons rejected it:  Another one trying to forbid financing weapon-producers was clearly&unsurprisingly opposed:  |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,797
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 29, 2020 23:19:30 GMT
That a referendum was approved by a majority of voters, but only a minority of cantons has happened so far ten times (in over 600 referenda of all kinds).
|
|
