3 ms·

Technically correct. They voted to not join so couldn’t leave. Of course they are in Schengen and the free trade area so basically in the EU for the most part

vinay427 4y ago
> they are in Schengen and the free trade area so basically in the EU for the most part That’s a large leap. It’s not in the EEA but is in the EFTA, so even fewer EU regulations apply than in Norway, for instance. Furthermore, the EU is a much larger political entity with its own parliament and other institutions, as I’m sure you’re aware, and these don’t have direct jurisdiction over most aspects of Swiss law as they would for EU member nations. It’s a more straightforward process for Switzerland to nullify its bilateral agreements (as is threatened seemingly every few years) than for something like Brexit.
- arlort 4y ago
  > even fewer EU regulations apply than in Norway, for instance Automatically, but many if not most commercial regulations get incorporated, in this case the warranty legislation also dictates 2 years > than for something like Brexit I would say the difference lies more in the renegotiation than in the cutting. EU membership doesn't get renegotiated often, while treaties between EU/CH are expected to be renegotiated (although that has a whole host of challenges and doesn't happen nearly as often as you'd expect) But nullification is a similar impact and a similar process as brexit because most of these negotiations had a guillotine clause which tied them toghether Brexit was a remarkably straightforward process, you send a letter and at the latest two years later you're out if you don't ask for exception It was the headless chicken phase when the UK was trying to negotiate without having an internal consensus on what they wanted that was convoluted
  - brmgb 4y ago
    Switzerland has this weird relationship with the EEA where they want to be able to export easily so they align their laws but don't want to be a member so they have no say on what is done. > Brexit was a remarkably straightforward process, you send a letter and at the latest two years later you're out if you don't ask for exception Straightforward is a bit of a stretch. Brexit was convoluted because the UK is in a weird position where it had a ton of agreements regarding its border with France which had not been negotiated for a long time as they didn't matter when they were part of the EU and they wanted things which were not compatible with the Good Friday agreement. As far as I know, this part is still not settled.
    - arlort 4y ago
      Yeah, but that's not the "exit" part, that's life as a third country part By the way, it was the border with Ireland that created issues, not the one with France It was an admittedly "um actually"-adjacent comment, but I think still justified because Switzerland would have the exact same issues if they just renounced their treaties with the EU so they'd need to undergo as complex a negotiation as the UK had to
      - vinay427 4y ago
        I think the absence of an Ireland situation for Switzerland is meaningful, here. There isn't a preexisting open border agreement that Switzerland is obligated to uphold by both the EU and the US, which the Good Friday Agreement is for the UK. That open border agreement also seems to go further than the Schengen agreement in practice considering Switzerland already has regular (but not universal) customs checks due to its ex-EEA status, not to mention other Schengen member nations such as Denmark which have at times maintained consistent immigration checks.
      - brmgb 4y ago
        > By the way, it was the border with Ireland that created issues, not the one with France As a French, let me tell you there were and still are plenty of issues with France too notably regarding fishing rights and border control. France didn't threaten to turn off electricity to some of the Channel islands because everything was fine.
        arlort 4y ago
        There were issues with France due to them leaving and the way they chose to, but the issues with the Irish border were constraining the way they could leave (to some level) The UK could choose to leave and cut off all agreements concerning fishing rights, the tunnel, the border checks with france and it'd have been perfectly legal, if diplomatically damaging With the Irish border there was/is the complication of the GFA, which prevented the same kind of approach
- arlcode 4y ago
  You are of course correct that they could at any point in time decide to cancel the contracts and it's part of the political game to threaten to do so every few years. In practice they have few alternatives given their location as a land locked nation without the ability to feed their population without imports. All trade flows through or over territory of EU member states. Tight CH-EU cooperation has been very beneficial for both sides and most of what we see is the usual political bickering.
saiya-jin 4y ago
Its limited free trade. Ie you have hard limits on imports per person, ie 1kg of meat, and when crossing you either pay officially hefty import tax on top of 8% swiss vat (which together easily doubles the price) or you are smuggling, and get hefty fine if caught. And they do check frequently on the borders. Inner EU borders see 0 checks (apart from covid era, for covid reasons only) and I am pretty sure you can carry between states much more. That doesn't say anything about warranty, I am 95% sure that it generally works cross borders both ways, ie a lot of Swiss folks order form German amazon and don't worry about return policies. I bought ski touring set from Austrian eshop more than decade ago, found out the boots were slightly too large and exchanged them for smaller, all via post, no imports or other extra fees paid. The shop supported this all explicitly, but its just a bit more paperwork on their side so bigger ones are happy to get your money.

vinay427 4y ago

> they are in Schengen and the free trade area so basically in the EU for the most part That’s a large leap. It’s not in the EEA but is in the EFTA, so even fewer EU regulations apply than in Norway, for instance. Furthermore, the EU is a much larger political entity with its own parliament and other institutions, as I’m sure you’re aware, and these don’t have direct jurisdiction over most aspects of Swiss law as they would for EU member nations. It’s a more straightforward process for Switzerland to nullify its bilateral agreements (as is threatened seemingly every few years) than for something like Brexit.

arlort 4y ago
> even fewer EU regulations apply than in Norway, for instance Automatically, but many if not most commercial regulations get incorporated, in this case the warranty legislation also dictates 2 years > than for something like Brexit I would say the difference lies more in the renegotiation than in the cutting. EU membership doesn't get renegotiated often, while treaties between EU/CH are expected to be renegotiated (although that has a whole host of challenges and doesn't happen nearly as often as you'd expect) But nullification is a similar impact and a similar process as brexit because most of these negotiations had a guillotine clause which tied them toghether Brexit was a remarkably straightforward process, you send a letter and at the latest two years later you're out if you don't ask for exception It was the headless chicken phase when the UK was trying to negotiate without having an internal consensus on what they wanted that was convoluted
- brmgb 4y ago
  Switzerland has this weird relationship with the EEA where they want to be able to export easily so they align their laws but don't want to be a member so they have no say on what is done. > Brexit was a remarkably straightforward process, you send a letter and at the latest two years later you're out if you don't ask for exception Straightforward is a bit of a stretch. Brexit was convoluted because the UK is in a weird position where it had a ton of agreements regarding its border with France which had not been negotiated for a long time as they didn't matter when they were part of the EU and they wanted things which were not compatible with the Good Friday agreement. As far as I know, this part is still not settled.
  - arlort 4y ago
    Yeah, but that's not the "exit" part, that's life as a third country part By the way, it was the border with Ireland that created issues, not the one with France It was an admittedly "um actually"-adjacent comment, but I think still justified because Switzerland would have the exact same issues if they just renounced their treaties with the EU so they'd need to undergo as complex a negotiation as the UK had to
    - vinay427 4y ago
      I think the absence of an Ireland situation for Switzerland is meaningful, here. There isn't a preexisting open border agreement that Switzerland is obligated to uphold by both the EU and the US, which the Good Friday Agreement is for the UK. That open border agreement also seems to go further than the Schengen agreement in practice considering Switzerland already has regular (but not universal) customs checks due to its ex-EEA status, not to mention other Schengen member nations such as Denmark which have at times maintained consistent immigration checks.
    - brmgb 4y ago
      > By the way, it was the border with Ireland that created issues, not the one with France As a French, let me tell you there were and still are plenty of issues with France too notably regarding fishing rights and border control. France didn't threaten to turn off electricity to some of the Channel islands because everything was fine.
      - arlort 4y ago
        There were issues with France due to them leaving and the way they chose to, but the issues with the Irish border were constraining the way they could leave (to some level) The UK could choose to leave and cut off all agreements concerning fishing rights, the tunnel, the border checks with france and it'd have been perfectly legal, if diplomatically damaging With the Irish border there was/is the complication of the GFA, which prevented the same kind of approach
arlcode 4y ago
You are of course correct that they could at any point in time decide to cancel the contracts and it's part of the political game to threaten to do so every few years. In practice they have few alternatives given their location as a land locked nation without the ability to feed their population without imports. All trade flows through or over territory of EU member states. Tight CH-EU cooperation has been very beneficial for both sides and most of what we see is the usual political bickering.

saiya-jin 4y ago

Its limited free trade. Ie you have hard limits on imports per person, ie 1kg of meat, and when crossing you either pay officially hefty import tax on top of 8% swiss vat (which together easily doubles the price) or you are smuggling, and get hefty fine if caught. And they do check frequently on the borders. Inner EU borders see 0 checks (apart from covid era, for covid reasons only) and I am pretty sure you can carry between states much more. That doesn't say anything about warranty, I am 95% sure that it generally works cross borders both ways, ie a lot of Swiss folks order form German amazon and don't worry about return policies. I bought ski touring set from Austrian eshop more than decade ago, found out the boots were slightly too large and exchanged them for smaller, all via post, no imports or other extra fees paid. The shop supported this all explicitly, but its just a bit more paperwork on their side so bigger ones are happy to get your money.