[svenski7]

Swiss pass tighter immigration 50-50

I like this part of the article: "Brussels said it regretted the outcome of the vote and would examine its implications."

Uh, wait, who gives a flying fuck what Brussels thinks? Are the Swiss people not sovereign? Is Belgium itself not a divided failed state (Walloon and Flams)?

I bet the Germans try and push Switzerland around next. As we saw with their anti-Putin stunt at the Olympic opening ceremony, they clearly hate any form of self-determination.

[Tytalus]

Interesting. Would be curious to see what the outcomes are in the next few months - see if all this tough political talk actually has teeth.

[DaveR]

When they say "Brussels," they're referring to the capital of the European Union, not Belgium. Most of the main departments of the EU are run from that city.

[svenski7]

(02-09-2014 02:04 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

When they say "Brussels," they're referring to the capital of the European Union, not Belgium. Most of the main departments of the EU are run from that city.

Dave: I know that Brussels is to the EU what Washington is to the US. The point is that Brussels is a joke. Everyone knows that these statements are passed down from the true power players in Berlin/London/Paris. The statement should read: "Berlin is disappointed and will look for ways to punish Switzerland for its show of sovereignty."

On a nation-state level, Brussels is the perfect example of what not to do. A divided city in a divided country that hasn't had a functioning gov't in years.

[j r]

From the article, it looks like you're misreading the situation. The bit about the EU and implications is referring to legal implications; it's not some politically correct scold.

Switzerland has an agreement with the EU, which stipulates free movement of EU citizens to Switzerland. I'm assuming that Switzerland gets other benefits from this agreement as well. So, if Switzerland re-negs on the deal, then of curse there are going to be implications.

[roberto]

Watching with interest here. The general feeling in the UK is that the EU costs us far more than we get out of it.

I imagine the Swiss feel the same. Both our countries do well out of financial services, both are strong countries with a history of proud independence. Neither of us need the 'level playing field' that the EU seeks to impose- our products are desirable (and it wasn't long ago that Britain was a world class manufacturer. People seek Britain out to emigrate to above other EU states.

We don't need EU subsidies (that are after all a net loss of about £74 per capita). These mostly go to subsidise farming. Farming can stand on it's own, especially with some political will behind it- we are after all an island, and it's senseless to export as much wheat as we import, for example.

I can see why the Swiss are objecting. Immigration to my country is diluting the once great spirit, to the point where we will become just another EU led drone country, incapable of regaining our once great past. Indeed, moves to regain that spirit now would require political will of unimaginable magnitude. Policies such as draconian curbs upon immigration, abolition of benefits and even the return of something akin to the workhouse for those with no desire to work. A very fine balance to be trod between being a proud, entrepreneurial country and becoming National-Socialist. That said, I'm undecided as to whether a National-Socialist society would actually be a good thing. Had Hitler not been nuts, and instead steered Germany down the path of peace, he would be remembered very differently. From my readings on the subject, there were ample opportunities for guys like us to grow rich under Nazi rule.

The EU wishes to dilute our country to the point where this is no longer an option. Go Switzerland.

[Clyde Rules]

So this is just another sign that nobody is really happy with being in the EU

[KorbenDallas]

The problem the EU has is that it's policies and in many cases very existence is rejected by the majority of voters in certain countries. Switzerland is the only Western European nation where the people have the ability to democratically overrule its representative leadership and the political games that allow the governments of other european countries to ignore the democratic will of the people.

If this same initiative was put to the voters of Britain and France they would also vote in favor of the initiative.

I think the EU is doomed to fail. When the EU was sold to the voters of Europe it was sold as more of a confederacy of nations for the mutual benefit of its members, but has morphed into a "United States of Europe" without the history of the United States as a single country or democratic legitimacy.

Rome failed, the catholic church failed, Napoleon failed, Hitler failed, Russia failed, and ultimately the EU bureaucracy, will fail to subdue Europe into one nation. Europe is too diverse, too independent minded, to become one nation. And thats not a bad thing.

[T and A Man]

The comments about it aren't related to race, nor the effect of low skilled immigrants.

They are about rampant population growth, particularly from high skilled individuals, and its impact on infrastructure and housing prices.

Similar situation to Australia I would imagine.

[rhino]

(02-10-2014 05:28 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

Rome failed, the catholic church failed, Napoleon failed, Hitler failed, Russia failed,

The ancient/pre-Rome societies failed, the Pharaons failed, the ancient Chinese failed, the Inkas failed, the Aztecs failed, the Spanish empire failed, the Portuguese empire failed, the Dutch empire failed, the British empire failed, the Italians failed, France failed, the Mongols failed, the Japanese failed, the hippies failed, the punks failed... Michael Bolton lost his hair... given enough timeline everybody fails because things along the space/time continuum develop in flux. NOTHING EVER stays the same. And yet we have certain ideologically-opiated American members on this forum, as well as the Americans in the general Mickey Mouse population at large, who are convinced that the USA with its paltry 50-60 year track record of (neo-imperial) success will somehow remain the hot global shit forever.

[KorbenDallas]

I was talking about Rome in the sense that it failed to conquer Europe. Europe has never been a single country-and I don't think it ever will, although its gotten close during Napoleon's reign and currently with the EU. Yes, everything fails eventually, but Germany became a united country out of its many different principalities and the different colonies of the US were able to unite into one nation as well.

The point of the EU is to unite Europe similarly to the way the American colonies United to form the USA, however, I think they will fail. The colonies were able to unite due to a single shared culture of Anglo-Saxon identity, whereas Europe, is composed of cultures and peoples possessing sovereignty for their nations for literally thousands of years in some cases.

Yes, everything fails, but in some cases large groups of people come together to form a larger nation out of smaller ones, however, a united europe would be a miracle in my view.

[paninaro]

(02-10-2014 05:28 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

I think the EU is doomed to fail. When the EU was sold to the voters of Europe it was sold as more of a confederacy of nations for the mutual benefit of its members, but has morphed into a "United States of Europe" without the history of the United States as a single country or democratic legitimacy.

I think it's because they aren't like a "United States of Europe" that they'll fail. It's all bureaucracy to get anything done at the EU level.

In the US, if the federal government passes a new law on telecommunications, that's that. It takes effect and companies follow it.

In the EU, they don't actually have a framework to do this (there is no "EU law"). Instead, they pass a "directive" and then all 28 countries of the EU have X months to pass their own individual legislation that conforms to this. Some countries won't pass it either because it's not a priority, or some particular clause violates their constitution, or they'll pass it but make some minor change. The EU routinely publishes a list of which countries did not fully implement directive X and so on. It's just a mess to get anything done.

Or take something simple like movement of goods and just driving a car. In some countries (Sweden, Finland, etc), you must use your headlights at all times when driving, day or night, summer or winter. In other countries (Portugal) it's illegal to use your headlights during the day. So how easy is it for a manufacturer to sell cars for the EU market? They have to specialize them for each country (one with automatic headlights, the other without), while in the US they can just make one car and it's eligible to be sold in all states (ok the one exception is California emissions, but that's about the only case).

Or let's look at situations that affect people, like marriage and divorce. Up until 2011, divorce was illegal in conservative and Catholic Malta, meanwhile gay marriage is allowed in countries like the Netherlands. So is a gay marriage in one EU country recognized in another? What about a (straight) divorce?

Then there's fiscal authority. Why don't we worry about US states going bankrupt? Because basically they can't. States are not allowed to run a budget deficit (bond issues in limited cases are allowed). What about state liabilities? Well the biggest liabilities -- pensions and elderly health care -- are largely handled by the US government in the form of Social Security and Medicare. So these burdens can be spread at the national level, and we don't worry too much about a specific state getting out of hand financially and crashing the entire US economy. Not so in the EU -- which country is causing issues this month due to lack of fiscal restraint? Ireland? Cyprus? Slovenia? Italy? Spain? And there's nothing the EU can do about it, except issue sternly-worded press releases.

If Obama wants to call the "head of the EU", who does he call? Is it Herman van Rompuy, president of the European Council? Or is it Catherine Ashton, high representative for foreign affairs? Ahh, or maybe it's Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission? No wait, maybe it's Evangelos Venizelos (Greece's Deputy Foreign Minister), because Greece currently holds the EU presidency. Obama better not wait on that call though -- the EU presidency rotates every 6 months, so by July it'll be some guy in Italy he'll need to call.

To me, the EU is the worst of both options. It imposes too many restraints on individual countries so they can't make their own decisions, while at the same time not having enough authority to rein in countries that get out of line.

I'm not down on Europe at all -- I just think the current EU structure is not going to survive in the long-term without significant changes.

[Tex Pro]

[michelin]

(02-10-2014 11:23 PM)paninaro Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:28 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

I think the EU is doomed to fail. When the EU was sold to the voters of Europe it was sold as more of a confederacy of nations for the mutual benefit of its members, but has morphed into a "United States of Europe" without the history of the United States as a single country or democratic legitimacy.

I think it's because they aren't like a "United States of Europe" that they'll fail. It's all bureaucracy to get anything done at the EU level.

In the US, if the federal government passes a new law on telecommunications, that's that. It takes effect and companies follow it.

In the EU, they don't actually have a framework to do this (there is no "EU law"). Instead, they pass a "directive" and then all 28 countries of the EU have X months to pass their own individual legislation that conforms to this. Some countries won't pass it either because it's not a priority, or some particular clause violates their constitution, or they'll pass it but make some minor change. The EU routinely publishes a list of which countries did not fully implement directive X and so on. It's just a mess to get anything done.

Or take something simple like movement of goods and just driving a car. In some countries (Sweden, Finland, etc), you must use your headlights at all times when driving, day or night, summer or winter. In other countries (Portugal) it's illegal to use your headlights during the day. So how easy is it for a manufacturer to sell cars for the EU market? They have to specialize them for each country (one with automatic headlights, the other without), while in the US they can just make one car and it's eligible to be sold in all states (ok the one exception is California emissions, but that's about the only case).

Or let's look at situations that affect people, like marriage and divorce. Up until 2011, divorce was illegal in conservative and Catholic Malta, meanwhile gay marriage is allowed in countries like the Netherlands. So is a gay marriage in one EU country recognized in another? What about a (straight) divorce?

Then there's fiscal authority. Why don't we worry about US states going bankrupt? Because basically they can't. States are not allowed to run a budget deficit (bond issues in limited cases are allowed). What about state liabilities? Well the biggest liabilities -- pensions and elderly health care -- are largely handled by the US government in the form of Social Security and Medicare. So these burdens can be spread at the national level, and we don't worry too much about a specific state getting out of hand financially and crashing the entire US economy. Not so in the EU -- which country is causing issues this month due to lack of fiscal restraint? Ireland? Cyprus? Slovenia? Italy? Spain? And there's nothing the EU can do about it, except issue sternly-worded press releases.

If Obama wants to call the "head of the EU", who does he call? Is it Herman van Rompuy, president of the European Council? Or is it Catherine Ashton, high representative for foreign affairs? Ahh, or maybe it's Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission? No wait, maybe it's Evangelos Venizelos (Greece's Deputy Foreign Minister), because Greece currently holds the EU presidency. Obama better not wait on that call though -- the EU presidency rotates every 6 months, so by July it'll be some guy in Italy he'll need to call.

To me, the EU is the worst of both options. It imposes too many restraints on individual countries so they can't make their own decisions, while at the same time not having enough authority to rein in countries that get out of line.

I'm not down on Europe at all -- I just think the current EU structure is not going to survive in the long-term without significant changes.

As a European I approve this post. Very sharp observations, except for the inaccurate example on the use of headlights in different countries.

[Maciano]

The Swiss don't need to do anything. In two weeks everyone has forgotten about this stuff.

My guess is most globalists didn't appreciate the relative high cost of servants in Davos two weeks ago.

If, however, this persists, the Swiss can easily buy them off by offering a couple of hundred elite scholarships: children of the elite. Problem solved.

[KorbenDallas]

People are worried about states going bankrupt, Illinois and California being prime examples.

I pretty much agreed with your post. The reason the EU's decision making process is so convoluted is because they knew European voters would reject a United States of Europe so they have attempted to push through their agenda for a centralized Europe piecemeal. As you've noted, this has not worked out well.

[jimukr104]

But isn't the EU really just suppose to be an economic block? Have they really tried to push social agendas from one country to another?I don't see how that can work when they are different cultures and even their economies at the local level are different.
That being said..I think Obama would have little reason to speak to the EU president. We deal with specific countries. Some are our allies and some aren't.

"I was talking about Rome in the sense that it failed to conquer Europe. Europe has never been a single country-and I don't think it ever will, although its gotten close during Napoleon's reign and currently with the EU. Yes, everything fails eventually, but Germany became a united country out of its many different principalities and the different colonies of the US were able to unite into one nation as well."


I don't think the EU was ever suppose to be one country..they don't want to lose thier individual culture.
That being said...I assumed USA already conquered Europe??They exist at our leisure .Tanks for the memories....aircraft carriers too!lol

[paninaro]

(02-11-2014 01:07 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

But isn't the EU really just suppose to be an economic block? Have they really tried to push social agendas from one country to another?I don't see how that can work when they are different cultures and even their economies at the local level are different.

I think ultimately it will end up just as an economic bloc, but they'll still need to add more teeth to their powers. There's currently way too much leeway for each Eurozone member to run huge deficits without any penalties, to the detriment of the other Eurozone members who end up financing the bailouts. Take the case of Greece's bailout 1-2 years ago. The average retirement age in Greece is 53, so the German taxpayer was stuck bailing out a country whose citizens have better benefits and social welfare than the Germans bailing them out (Funny article on it.)

Or there's the case last year of many of Cyprus's banks failing and having deposits greater than their entire GDP (it was Russian money basically). I imagine the people of the EU weren't to happy to be bailing out the deposits of wealthy Russians.

There are ways to solve this -- set EU-wide standards for retirement age, pensions; and have banks insured at the EU level not country level. I guess ultimately they'll have to do that, assuming there is the political will for it.

[Thailand_Veteran]

(02-09-2014 12:43 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  

Swiss pass tighter immigration 50-50

I like this part of the article: "Brussels said it regretted the outcome of the vote and would examine its implications."

Uh, wait, who gives a flying fuck what Brussels thinks? Are the Swiss people not sovereign? Is Belgium itself not a divided failed state (Walloon and Flams)?

I bet the Germans try and push Switzerland around next. As we saw with their anti-Putin stunt at the Olympic opening ceremony, they clearly hate any form of self-determination.

Sorry, but I would like to politely correct you on this. If you would have said Germany or the German government, yes I agree.

A big majority of Germans actually very much agrees with the decision made by the Swiss. Some even admire the political system in Switzerland allowing their people to actively participate in decisions.
In many European countries like France, Netherlands, UK the same things are discussed right now. If citizens in the above mentioned countries would be able to decide directly on mass Immigration, I think the outcome would be even stronger against it.
In Germany right now a new political party wishes to establish a immigration point system as in US or Canada. However anybody, who is not pro mass Immigration, pro EURO faces the racist, nazi stigma. Although I have lived almost on every continent in the world, I have not yet found a government being stupid enough to allow unqualified immigration straight into the social welfare systems. This only happens in Germany.

Therefore congrats to the Swiss - well done!!!