Swiss vote to bring back immigration laws

[Gravlen]

Right, so no treaties has been invalidated thus far. Contrary to your previous claim.

I don't now what news site you have been reading but every single one I have read mentions that the vote invalidates that agreement on free movement.

I've been reading the treaties.

[Free Tristania]

We should go too. Good luck, Italy. Don't forget to pay us back for all the economic assistance.

Oh wow. Italy pays far more than Britain, in euros, per capita and as percent of GDP. I mean, you've got the whole internet to look up these things, can you just not be bothered to do the research? Or is there another reason?

I am not British.

[Free Tristania]

Read-up complete.

I have concluded you're even worse at supporting the Nordic model than I originally thought. Opposition to immigration does not indicate a great deal of support for “low barriers to free trade” and “economic openness” (listed as major facets of Nordic social democracy, as it's more formally referred to, by this source), and an outspoken distaste for the state is not a good indicator of supporting “statist individualism.”

I'm not sure why you're insulting my level of education here, at least I know what the fuck I'm talking about when I discuss neoliberalism with people. I'm not convinced you understand the Nordic model that you propagate so strongly here.

What does free trade have to do with people via immigration? Unless your a 19th century plantation owner.

That's probably the system that he advocates.

[Arkinesia]

What does free trade have to do with people via immigration? Unless your a 19th century plantation owner.

That's probably the system that he advocates.

I'm sorry, I thought you were the Nordic model advocate here. As in, the model that currently has some of the most damn fool positive discrimination policies on the planet (Norway's Golden Skirt policy springs to mind immediately). But I'm the one advocating for needless economic restrictions? Give me a break.

[European Socialist Republic]

I'm not speaking of just laws, I'm speaking of general good governance, in which the people of Switzerland clearly have no interest.

But as already mentioned earlier in the discussion, Switzerland is bound by bilateral treaty to grant freedom of movement, so you're wrong anyway..

Bullshit on both counts. Treaties can be cancelled by the people if it does not serve their needs. That's why Switzerland is a democracy and why you're against democracy. Besides as history as shown: all your preferred socialist paradises are corrupt dictatorships. All of them. The Swiss people rule Switzerland - not a pseudocommie like you who isn't even Swiss.

Hold on a sec... The referendum was accepted with 50.3% of the votes, but how high was the turnout? Apparently only 56%.
http://www.dw.de/swiss-voters-narrowly- ... a-17420367
In other words, the referendum was accepted by 50.3% of 56% of the electorate. So in reality, only a little more than 28% of the electorate voted in favour of this referendum.
I am not amused.

28% of the electorate forcing their views on the rest of the population? Wow, how democratic!

[Neu Leonstein]

I am not British.

Granted.

Same holds for the Netherlands.

[Kalarin]

On balance I don't see anything wrong with this. The swiss have the right to set immigration laws and if it passes via referendun then so be it. Yes in constitutes on 28% of people but given that 44% of people didnt take part its hard to complain about it since only a slight majority took part.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Brussels cannot afford making more enemies.

That is why the EU should be strengthened.

No. The EU need not be the wet dream of the European left.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

No. The EU need not be the wet dream of the European left.

Who are you to say what other countries should do if they are respecting human rights?

[The Nihilistic view]

You do know that a tariff is not exclusive to national boarder's right? Most other powers had Tarrif's on good's from colonies. Secondly the commonwealth is not a nation but a volentary club of nation's. Also you conveniently have forgotten about the dominions.

Colonies are not domestic territories, if they were domestic they would not be a colony they would be an integral part of in this case Britain. Not administered as a devolved colony, which is what happened. Most colonies were administrated as separate countries by Britain. That's why in countries that are still a monarchy it has always been the Queen or her representative that has done all the official state stuff not the PM of the day or a representative of him. Having the same head of state does not have to equal being part of the same country.

…apparently, none of this even matters, because according to my research, Britain had free trade and immigration with its colonies and overseas holdings. It was an informal system, but it was free trade nonetheless.

Free trade yes, free movement no. A Visa was still required.

[The Nihilistic view]

I don't now what news site you have been reading but every single one I have read mentions that the vote invalidates that agreement on free movement.

I've been reading the treaties.

That's probably why, treaties don't normally have a clause about a specific referendum in the future.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Bullshit on both counts. Treaties can be cancelled by the people if it does not serve their needs. That's why Switzerland is a democracy and why you're against democracy. Besides as history as shown: all your preferred socialist paradises are corrupt dictatorships. All of them. The Swiss people rule Switzerland - not a pseudocommie like you who isn't even Swiss.

Hold on a sec... The referendum was accepted with 50.3% of the votes, but how high was the turnout? Apparently only 56%.
http://www.dw.de/swiss-voters-narrowly- ... a-17420367
In other words, the referendum was accepted by 50.3% of 56% of the electorate. So in reality, only a little more than 28% of the electorate voted in favour of this referendum.
I am not amused.

28% of the electorate forcing their views on the rest of the population? Wow, how democratic!

"Forcing" ???

I don't think you understand how democracies work mate. When you want something you get off your ass and vote for it. Your opinion on any matter becomes irrelevant to the democracy the second you refuse to express it. NO ONE forced any of the 44% NOT to vote.

[Sol Nascente]

When the people decide something which is against Leftist Views they always find some excuse to justify why the result is wrong or bad.

You should know many people in Swiss can't vote cause they don't have swiss citizenship and they did the right thing since Crime is escalating over the years with immigrants hands.

[Neu Leonstein]

On balance I don't see anything wrong with this. The swiss have the right to set immigration laws and if it passes via referendun then so be it. Yes in constitutes on 28% of people but given that 44% of people didnt take part its hard to complain about it since only a slight majority took part.

The thing that really bugs me is that the places with immigrants voted against it, and the places with the greatest proportion of old people and smallest numbers of immigrants voted for it. So even if you accepted the aggregate numbers, you'd have to worry about the implications of the distribution of these votes.

[The Nihilistic view]

Bullshit on both counts. Treaties can be cancelled by the people if it does not serve their needs. That's why Switzerland is a democracy and why you're against democracy. Besides as history as shown: all your preferred socialist paradises are corrupt dictatorships. All of them. The Swiss people rule Switzerland - not a pseudocommie like you who isn't even Swiss.

Hold on a sec... The referendum was accepted with 50.3% of the votes, but how high was the turnout? Apparently only 56%.
http://www.dw.de/swiss-voters-narrowly- ... a-17420367
In other words, the referendum was accepted by 50.3% of 56% of the electorate. So in reality, only a little more than 28% of the electorate voted in favour of this referendum.
I am not amused.

28% of the electorate forcing their views on the rest of the population? Wow, how democratic!

Look at it the other way round, about 27.5% tried to force their views on the rest of the population.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

No. The EU need not be the wet dream of the European left.

Who are you to say what other countries should do if they are respecting human rights?

No? You don't see it? The irony?

Who are you to say what other countries (read Switzerland) should do if they are deciding democratically and respecting human rights?

[Sol Nascente]

On balance I don't see anything wrong with this. The swiss have the right to set immigration laws and if it passes via referendun then so be it. Yes in constitutes on 28% of people but given that 44% of people didnt take part its hard to complain about it since only a slight majority took part.

The thing that really bugs me is that the places with immigrants voted against it, and the places with the greatest proportion of old people and smallest numbers of immigrants voted for it. So even if you accepted the aggregate numbers, you'd have to worry about the implications of the distribution of these votes.

Do you really know the motives for this motion ?

[Neu Leonstein]

Do you really know the motives for this motion ?

I have my own theories, but I'd be glad to hear yours.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

On balance I don't see anything wrong with this. The swiss have the right to set immigration laws and if it passes via referendun then so be it. Yes in constitutes on 28% of people but given that 44% of people didnt take part its hard to complain about it since only a slight majority took part.

The thing that really bugs me is that the places with immigrants voted against it, and the places with the greatest proportion of old people and smallest numbers of immigrants voted for it. So even if you accepted the aggregate numbers, you'd have to worry about the implications of the distribution of these votes.

As usual. The most fervent supporters of these stances will always be the ones who have the least experience of what they actually entail. Rule of thumb: determination is directly proportional with lack of experience

[European Socialist Republic]

1) You should know many people in Swiss can't vote cause they don't have swiss citizenship and they did the right thing 2) since Crime is escalating over the years with immigrants hands.

1) No, I have no idea. How many?
2) Source?

[Gravlen]

I've been reading the treaties.

That's probably why, treaties don't normally have a clause about a specific referendum in the future.

Treaties aren't directly decided by referendums, since the parties to the treaties are states. Until the state of Switzerland cancels the treaty in question (or renegotiates it), Switzerland is still bound by it. And the government has three years to implement the will of the people.

Hence, no treaties have been invalidated thus far.

[European Socialist Republic]

I've been reading the treaties.

That's probably why, treaties don't normally have a clause about a specific referendum in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_ ... _Union_law)
If Switzerland was a member of the EU, their referendum wouldn't have any effect at all.

Although EU law is still international law, which usually takes precedence over national law. I wonder if Switzerland is monist or dualist. If it's monist, things could get fun.

[Sol Nascente]

1) You should know many people in Swiss can't vote cause they don't have swiss citizenship and they did the right thing 2) since Crime is escalating over the years with immigrants hands.

1) No, I have no idea. How many?
2) Source?

It's quite a few since it's expensive to get citizenship so it's normal having people work there but don't have citizenship.

Just check on the country itself since BUS, Streets have placards to watchout with pickpokects, assaults and recently it's becoming more common to have Houses robbed.

I Have family there and they say the samething I experienced there.

[European Socialist Republic]

1) No, I have no idea. How many?
2) Source?

It's quite a few since it's expensive to get citizenship so it's normal having people work there but don't have citizenship.

Just check on the country itself since BUS, Streets have placards to watchout with pickpokects, assaults and recently it's becoming more common to have Houses robbed.

I Have family there and they say the samething I experienced there.

I'd prefer a source, really.

[Agritum]

The thing that really bugs me is that the places with immigrants voted against it, and the places with the greatest proportion of old people and smallest numbers of immigrants voted for it. So even if you accepted the aggregate numbers, you'd have to worry about the implications of the distribution of these votes.

As usual. The most fervent supporters of these stances will always be the ones who have the least experience of what they actually entail. Rule of thumb: determination is directly proportional with lack of experience

Wait, so you actually agree with him that the ones who voted FOR the quotas knew shit about the consequences of that vote?