5 ms·

That's what Switzerland does. Just today I voted about an energy act, a police act and a residence planning act. I admit that I didn't study the law texts care

That's what Switzerland does. Just today I voted about an energy act, a police act and a residence planning act. I admit that I didn't study the law texts carefully. Instead I read the neutral explanation of the government and both explanations of the pro and contra committees and decided whether the reasonings convinced me or not. So even in Switzerland you could get the proverbial shit show if someone managed to convince the people with misleading arguments, and I am afraid this already happened a few times.

m_mueller 8y ago
be careful with that "neutral explanation". in the last one we got told that private agents hired by social insurances may only observe clients in public spaces, while the law text actually says "public spaces and what's observable from there". i.e. pretty much any Swiss inhabitant can now be put under surveillance in their private homes without any judge order.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  This would be considered abuse and such interpretation would likely get thrown out as justification for active surveillance. The law pertains to truly passive surveillance only. And trying to use such evidence in court could be repealed then as obtained illegally. (Surveillance without a warrant.) The spirit of the law is to allow reasonably incidental recording only. A zoom camera pointed at your window is not covered, neither are directional microphones etc. Law is not an algorithm. It is executed by judges and jurors. (Note: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    That would depend on the wording and on legal precedent in the UK some civil service pensioners had changes to their pensions because the wording of the scheme of arrangement used a different three letter word than some other pensioners.
  - m_mueller 8y ago
    When it comes to surveillance I don't put any trust in the system other than what's strictly allowed / disallowed according to law text. Remember Fichen?
- _nalply 8y ago
  Yes, you are right. Then the opposing committee would point this out in their explanation.
  - m_mueller 8y ago
    People tend to trust the government much more than opposition committees.
andrepd 8y ago
But precisely, you are voting on laws, not on an abstract "would you rather leave or remain" question. The referendum should have been held now: "We have this deal prepared, would you leave with this deal, leave with no deal, or remain?"
- candiodari 8y ago
  Meanwhile there have been several conservative speeches in Parliament about the direction they want: They want May to come up with a better plan for a "No deal" Brexit. To take a much harder stance against the EU in negotiations. THAT's why they voted against her. I feel like this is going in a VERY different direction than is being implied in the comments here. And let's be honest here: it might work. In the EU, in all countries where I can understand the language: France, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands there are artikels on the front page of the main newspaper about companies lobbying to force their governments to simply break ranks with the EU in case of "No deal": to have a trade pact with the UK ready to go March 29. In theory, that's not legal, but there is precedent. If the UK can get trade deals with the US (which is not going to be a problem), Ireland, Belgium, France and the Netherlands, the damage of a no deal Brexit will be limited quite a bit. A "fuck the lot of you. No deal !" approach ... it's not out of the question that they actually make it work. Plus, you know, it's clearly what the majority of the voters want and in theory both the UK and these European countries are democracies. On would think that would make it simple. And then there's the question of what happens if Juncker gets called on his bluff. AFD, 5*, Lega Nord and FN will certainly see their hand strengthened quite a bit if the UK blows up their EU membership and actually gets away with it. Talk about worst possible outcome for everyone. The EU should say "ok ... voters decided, sucks, but let's make this work. Let's give the UK a fair exit and a fair trade deal". That is in the interest of everyone in the EU AND everyone in the UK ... with the notable exception of the EU politicians themselves.
  - purple_ducks 8y ago
    Ah, that's not how the EU works when it comes to trade. You're in or you're out. Non-EU countries make trade deals with the EU who is collectively acting on their member states behalf. There will _NEVER_ be a "side" trade deal between Britain and an EU member state directly. Don't feel too bad about not knowing this. The original Minister for Brexit David Davis (& embarrassingly enough a former Europe minister) also didn't know this. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-for-brexit-davis-davis-eu-european-union-germany-single-market-trade-deals-unaware-mistake-a7136121.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-for-... > However one of the main basic features of the European Union is that EU countries cannot negotiate individual trade deals without side countries and instead do so as a bloc of 28.
ninedays 8y ago
My issue is that people vote based on the fact that they become convinced by other parties instead of developing their own opinions by trying to understand the ramifications of a law. Not saying this is right or wrong, laws are written in a non friendly way so it is not easily understandable by most but I wish more people tried to do the research themselves.

m_mueller 8y ago

be careful with that "neutral explanation". in the last one we got told that private agents hired by social insurances may only observe clients in public spaces, while the law text actually says "public spaces and what's observable from there". i.e. pretty much any Swiss inhabitant can now be put under surveillance in their private homes without any judge order.

AstralStorm 8y ago
This would be considered abuse and such interpretation would likely get thrown out as justification for active surveillance. The law pertains to truly passive surveillance only. And trying to use such evidence in court could be repealed then as obtained illegally. (Surveillance without a warrant.) The spirit of the law is to allow reasonably incidental recording only. A zoom camera pointed at your window is not covered, neither are directional microphones etc. Law is not an algorithm. It is executed by judges and jurors. (Note: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  That would depend on the wording and on legal precedent in the UK some civil service pensioners had changes to their pensions because the wording of the scheme of arrangement used a different three letter word than some other pensioners.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  When it comes to surveillance I don't put any trust in the system other than what's strictly allowed / disallowed according to law text. Remember Fichen?
_nalply 8y ago
Yes, you are right. Then the opposing committee would point this out in their explanation.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  People tend to trust the government much more than opposition committees.

andrepd 8y ago

But precisely, you are voting on laws, not on an abstract "would you rather leave or remain" question. The referendum should have been held now: "We have this deal prepared, would you leave with this deal, leave with no deal, or remain?"

candiodari 8y ago
Meanwhile there have been several conservative speeches in Parliament about the direction they want: They want May to come up with a better plan for a "No deal" Brexit. To take a much harder stance against the EU in negotiations. THAT's why they voted against her. I feel like this is going in a VERY different direction than is being implied in the comments here. And let's be honest here: it might work. In the EU, in all countries where I can understand the language: France, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands there are artikels on the front page of the main newspaper about companies lobbying to force their governments to simply break ranks with the EU in case of "No deal": to have a trade pact with the UK ready to go March 29. In theory, that's not legal, but there is precedent. If the UK can get trade deals with the US (which is not going to be a problem), Ireland, Belgium, France and the Netherlands, the damage of a no deal Brexit will be limited quite a bit. A "fuck the lot of you. No deal !" approach ... it's not out of the question that they actually make it work. Plus, you know, it's clearly what the majority of the voters want and in theory both the UK and these European countries are democracies. On would think that would make it simple. And then there's the question of what happens if Juncker gets called on his bluff. AFD, 5*, Lega Nord and FN will certainly see their hand strengthened quite a bit if the UK blows up their EU membership and actually gets away with it. Talk about worst possible outcome for everyone. The EU should say "ok ... voters decided, sucks, but let's make this work. Let's give the UK a fair exit and a fair trade deal". That is in the interest of everyone in the EU AND everyone in the UK ... with the notable exception of the EU politicians themselves.
- purple_ducks 8y ago
  Ah, that's not how the EU works when it comes to trade. You're in or you're out. Non-EU countries make trade deals with the EU who is collectively acting on their member states behalf. There will _NEVER_ be a "side" trade deal between Britain and an EU member state directly. Don't feel too bad about not knowing this. The original Minister for Brexit David Davis (& embarrassingly enough a former Europe minister) also didn't know this. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-for-brexit-davis-davis-eu-european-union-germany-single-market-trade-deals-unaware-mistake-a7136121.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-for-... > However one of the main basic features of the European Union is that EU countries cannot negotiate individual trade deals without side countries and instead do so as a bloc of 28.

ninedays 8y ago

My issue is that people vote based on the fact that they become convinced by other parties instead of developing their own opinions by trying to understand the ramifications of a law. Not saying this is right or wrong, laws are written in a non friendly way so it is not easily understandable by most but I wish more people tried to do the research themselves.