Swiss referendum

[Hazir]

The Swiss have in their wisdom decided to add a rule to their constitution that voids its bilateral treaties with the EU in the near future. It's going to be interesting how well they will fare trying to keep their access to the single market. Other people with adventurous schemes may want to take notes.

[RandBlade]

Such is their right as an independent democracy.

What is more of a shame is they've adopted a policy to greatly restrict migration. The rise of anti-migration politics across West is regrettable.

[Ominous Gamer]

Didnt that win by like less than a single percent of votes? Reminds me of the US, only half the country is made up of assholes.

[Hazir]

It's their right alright. But imposing quotas put them outside the single market overnight. Because that's the deal they're renaging on. Interesting to see that you are the first one to reply and come with a reaction in defense of anti-British legislation in a third country.

[Hazir]

Didnt that win by like less than a single percent of. Votes? Reminds me of the US, only half the country is made up of assholes.

50.4%. Who by the way also potentially turned the 400k Swiss citizens working in the EU into illegal aliens.

[Loki]

Direct democracy in action.

[RandBlade]

It's their right alright. But imposing quotas put them outside the single market overnight. Because that's the deal they're renaging on. Interesting to see that you are the first one to reply and come with a reaction in defense of anti-British legislation in a third country.

In defence? I oppose how they've voted as I made abundantly clear, if you think "shame" and "regrettable" are defending the decision you need to think again - but its not my country so I have no say. I think I have the most pro-migration attitude of any member of this forum. I have long made clear my belief that we should allow free movement - and not just to Europeans. I welcome anyone to the UK who wants to abide by our laws and contribute to society.

[Hazir]

You felt it necessary to write the first line of your reply before all that. There was no need for it.

[RandBlade]

Sure there was. The notion that Brussels was against the motion (an area I agree with them) is not a shock. The Swiss knew that full well but voted that way anyway. I respect their right to do so, though I disagree with it. You wrote the OP without even mentioning migration your sole focus being just the EU - that amused me.

[earthJoker]

The decision is not very good indeed. I wonder if how this turns out once the decision of the EU is made about the guillotine clause.

[Hazir]

Sure there was. The notion that Brussels was against the motion (an area I agree with them) is not a shock. The Swiss knew that full well but voted that way anyway. I respect their right to do so, though I disagree with it. You wrote the OP without even mentioning migration your sole focus being just the EU - that amused me.

"Brussels" is actually the voice of moderation in the official reactions to this vote. The real venom is coming from the captitals of the memberstates.

Also you have not explained why the hell you should invoke the sovereignty of another nation if that nation takes away your rights without any prior consultation.

[Hazir]

The decision is not very good indeed. I wonder if how this turns out once the decision of the EU is made about the guillotine clause.

I don't see why the EU should take a decision; the guillotine clause is an automatism. Once either of the two sides renages on any of the agreements all agreements lapse. That is the rule. The only reason the EU should take any decision if it has any room for re-negotiating the deal. But as we can clearly see, the memberstates are rapidly reducing the room for re-negotiation to the point that there is none.

It is not impossible that the EU will conclude that the vote is a problem for Switzerland and Switzerland alone; maybe the Swiss should vote again and come up with a proposal the EU finds acceptable. There certainly is no reason for the EU to take the sovereignty of its members any less serious than that of Switzerland.

I can already tell you that any quota, no matter how high it will be set, is acceptable as quantitative restrictions are beyond the Pale.

What's also interesting; the SVP has painted the country in a corner with a 3-year deadline; let's assume there is something to talk about and a new agreement is possible. Then that agreement should be ratified by all sides within the 3 years the proposal gave the process.

P.S. the first effects are already visible; the EU has suspended talks about new agreements with Switzerland.

[RandBlade]

"Brussels" is actually the voice of moderation in the official reactions to this vote. The real venom is coming from the captitals of the memberstates.

Also you have not explained why the hell you should invoke the sovereignty of another nation if that nation takes away your rights without any prior consultation.

Because other nations have that right in their own sovereign territory. There has been a full prior consultation - of their citizens via referendum. Foreignors have no democratic rights when it comes to referenda. I dislike their decision but they've made it, I dislike many nations democratic choices. Such is the nature of direct democracy sometimes and why I am not a fan of direct democracy.

[Hazir]

An internal debate in Switzerland changing a the conditions with regards to an international treaty does not constitute prior consultation with the other party to that treaty.

But I see your hatred for the EU is more important than acknowledging even the most basic rules in international relations. Must be because the Swiss are making clear that there is no such thing as a re-negotiating the EU deal.

[Hazir]

The situation could become real ugly real fast for Switzerland; in July the country is supposed to ratify an agreement covering the entry of Croatia to the EU. If Switzerland does so, it has to pass legislation in violation of yesterday's decision, but it would give the government some extra time to try to find a way out of the corner it's been painted into. If they fail to pass the legislation, the situation in which the EU has to conclude the Swiss are in violation could become accute. And that being the case, it probably wouldn't take long for one of the memberstates throwing oil on the fire. Any of the newer memberstates would be a probable candidate for that but also the homestates of the three biggest groups affected by this vote (Italians, Germans, French) could be ready to retaliate.

[earthJoker]

I don't see why the EU should take a decision; the guillotine clause is an automatism. Once either of the two sides renages on any of the agreements all agreements lapse. That is the rule. The only reason the EU should take any decision if it has any room for re-negotiating the deal. But as we can clearly see, the member states are rapidly reducing the room for re-negotiation to the point that there is none.

Talking is different from walking. So far it is politicians working on their profiles. The EU will soon be in the position were it has to make a decision as the Swiss cabinet has no room, it must start re-negotiating, that's part of the proposal. So any time soon the Swiss goverment will ask the EU for re-negation, and the EU will then make a decision if it will enter any talks. One of the possible answers of the EU is that it will not enter any talks and let the bilaterals drop.

It is not impossible that the EU will conclude that the vote is a problem for Switzerland and Switzerland alone; maybe the Swiss should vote again and come up with a proposal the EU finds acceptable. There certainly is no reason for the EU to take the sovereignty of its members any less serious than that of Switzerland.

Of course there is a reason. They are members of the EU. They gave up a part of their sovereignty the day they entered the union.

I can already tell you that any quota, no matter how high it will be set, is acceptable as quantitative restrictions are beyond the Pale.

What's also interesting; the SVP has painted the country in a corner with a 3-year deadline; let's assume there is something to talk about and a new agreement is possible. Then that agreement should be ratified by all sides within the 3 years the proposal gave the process.

3 years is not doable. But at least it gives enough time to make another voting once the EU made an official statement on the consequences.

[Hazir]

The EU also has no room and represents 28 governments that don't want to provide any room but for the usual suspect. As things stand the EU is perfectly willing to go on with the standing deal, Switzerland is not. That makes Switzerland the party that should come up with a deal that is acceptable. It is tfrankly not our problem how the Swiss change their constitution. If your referenda put you in an impossible situation, then have another one that gets you out of it.

The fact that EU members are members doesn't mean their sovereignty doesn't count. They chose to execute it in a different way than most other countires but in essence they are all sovereign nations working together. Also, because the Swiss decided in 1992 to stay out of that arrangement, and in 2002 agreed to a structure of bilateral agreements the individual decisions of EU members are especially important; one member not agreeing with a free deal for Switzerland means that there is no deal. And I can assure you that Switzerland didn't make any friends in Eastern Europe over the last decade, it barely has any friends in the Western part of the continent either.

Anybody in Switzerland thinking that sundays vote will result in a quantitative limitation on EU immigration with Switzerland not paying heavily is deluding himself. It is very thinkable that as a result of sunday's vote Switzerland will be in a position that to just keep what it has today it may have to drop any provisionary limits it was allowed.

The first negative effects for Switzerland are already visible; Swiss students/universities may be unable use the Erasmus+ program in the 2014 academic year and Swiss companies may be inadmissable as partners in Horizon research projects.

And of course I will be voting in our elections (including the upcoming EP one) for parties that will not accept the way the Swiss are trying to strip away my personal rights unilaterally.

[earthJoker]

The EU also has no room and represents 28 governments that don't want to provide any room but for the usual suspect. As things stand the EU is perfectly willing to go on with the standing deal, Switzerland is not. That makes Switzerland the party that should come up with a deal that is acceptable.

Of course it is the Swiss side that has to come up with a new deal, but it's the EU that has to define what is acceptable. And it has any right to reject a deal if it wants so.

[RandBlade]

An internal debate in Switzerland changing a the conditions with regards to an international treaty does not constitute prior consultation with the other party to that treaty.

Irrelevant. A sovereign nation in a referendum has to consult its own citizens not foreignors. The nation should probably try to negotiate as well as it can afterwards with the other parties, but the purpose of a referendum is to consult its own citizens.

But I see your hatred for the EU is more important than acknowledging even the most basic rules in international relations. Must be because the Swiss are making clear that there is no such thing as a re-negotiating the EU deal.

Nonsense. Your hatred of anything I say is blinding you to the fact that I have opposed this decision by the Swiss. But that is the point of their nation's direct democracy - if they want to make stupid decisions that is their choice.

Your problem is that you are regarding this solely from the prism of what does the EU think. Well it somewhat doesn't matter.

The Swiss had a choice to make under the terms of their constitution. The Swiss had previously determined under that constitution not to join the EU. The Swiss knew that the EU were opposed to one of the choices. The Swiss voted to take that choice anyway. They were given an option, made an informed decision. They have made their bed, they can lie in it. That is direct democracy in action. And why it is a dumb idea IMO but it is THEIR idea.

[Flixy]

An internal debate in Switzerland changing a the conditions with regards to an international treaty does not constitute prior consultation with the other party to that treaty.

But I see your hatred for the EU is more important than acknowledging even the most basic rules in international relations. Must be because the Swiss are making clear that there is no such thing as a re-negotiating the EU deal.

A sovereign nation can always unilaterally remove itself from any treaties, no? Only of course there can be (big) consequences, and it's likely a stupid idea, but they always can do that. Basic rules in international rules are not so much rules you can't break - you can break them, but it's generally a bad idea because it will hurt your relations.

[Khendraja'aro]

Erm, that's actually the case for all contracts and treaties. You can break them but you'll suffer the consequences.

[RandBlade]

Exactly!

[Flixy]

Erm, that's actually the case for all contracts and treaties. You can break them but you'll suffer the consequences.

Good point Though with rules generally the consequences are a bit more clear, since they tend to be codified in laws.

[RandBlade]

With international negotiations rules and consequences are far more of a fudge (and determined as much by current politics as pre-set rules) than codified laws though.

[earthJoker]

There is not even a dedicated court defined in the bilaterals. A jurisdiction is usually defined in every contract, but not in this treaty. It is pretty much up to the treaty partners to decide if the other side fulfills the treaty.

[Hazir]

A sovereign nation can always unilaterally remove itself from any treaties, no? Only of course there can be (big) consequences, and it's likely a stupid idea, but they always can do that. Basic rules in international rules are not so much rules you can't break - you can break them, but it's generally a bad idea because it will hurt your relations.

I had issue with the fact that Randblade was suggesting there had been prior consultation with the EU. There hasn't been any consultation whatsoever with the EU and as things stand the Swiss are already in violation of their obligations with their announcement. The EU is reacting in a very level headed way by giving the Swiss time to sort out their mess, but de jure is under no obligation to honour any agreement with the Swiss as we speak.

[earthJoker]

How so? The article will only be enforced in three years or in the unlikely event that there is an agreement in beforehand. Until the new article is enforced the treaty still stands. Of course the EU can quit the agreements at any moment if the want so.

[Hazir]

How so? The article will only be enforced in three years or in the unlikely event that there is an agreement in beforehand. Until the new article is enforced the treaty still stands. Of course the EU can quit the agreements at any moment if the want so.

That is one way of reading the present situation. The other is that Switzerland no longer has the intention of honoring its obligation to allow unlimited free movement of workers. The fact that implementation will take years could be deemed immaterial. It is clear by the way that everybody, for now, is sticking to the interpretation that Switzerland is still not in violation. I can only presume because 3 years is a long time and a solution to the present situation could be found before Switzerland is reduced to 'third-country' status, which isn't really in te interest of the EU either.

Which shouldn't delude certain Swiss actors into thinking that is a bigger interest to the EU than standing firm on free movement. Quite to the contrary, however unpleasant it will be to hurt EU interests in trade with Switzerland; Switzerland as an example may be seen as the final deterrant for adventurists inside the Union.

By the way; I think that what the Swiss voters have done is give those countries that are hostile towards Swiss special position a very sharp weapon to exact bigger concessions from Switzerland (don't make the mistake to think that Brussels is your enemy, Brussels is your newest biggest friend in Europe that may offer some protection against the most vindictous member states). In the end Switzerland may find that full membership is a deal far preferable over a new special deal.

Newest fall out; the EU has suspended talks on an agreement including Switzerland in the EU's open market for electricity.

[RandBlade]

I had issue with the fact that Randblade was suggesting there had been prior consultation with the EU.

I suggested no such thing. Re-read the thread and you'll realise your mistake.

[Hazir]

I suggested no such thing. Re-read the thread and you'll realise your mistake.

Yeah rite, I clearly was refering to the international 'prior consultation', you come up with the idiotic notion of 'internal prior consultation', which if it would exist still not is what I was talking about.

Really... I should not allow myself to be tempted into discussing anything with you.