6 ms·

Only 58% of the voters voted. 55% no is… ok? Typical for such votes? But of course, the SVP have been launching the same initiative since the 70s, they are un

by FabCH 4mo ago

Only 58% of the voters voted. 55% no is… ok? Typical for such votes? But of course, the SVP have been launching the same initiative since the 70s, they are unlikely to stop now.

alephnerd 4mo ago
The issue is this means in aggregate only around 3-5% of the total population needs to flip in it's opinions for CHexit to happen - which is very doable over two election cycles. A 55% win with 58% turnout despite how this vote was front and center of media discourse is very worrisome as this shows how disengaged the other 42% are.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > in aggregate only around 3-5% of the total population needs to flip in it's opinions for CHexit to happen If the marketing were less xenophobic and the cap were derived from some scientific basis, I think I could be persuaded to vote for it. Particularly since it is not a vote for Chexit, but a democratic vote to confront the EU. (Britain triggered Article 50. Nothing in this referendum directs Berne to do that.)
  - anonymous908213 4mo ago
    > a democratic vote to confront the EU In what way? It is a vote to adopt a policy that is in breach of your international treaty obligations. Unilaterally breaching your obligations is not a grounds for discussion or compromise, it is simply an exit from them, benefits included. Suppose you're not getting on with your roommate. You could talk to them and try to resolve the problems, or you could default on your lease and receive an eviction notice from the landlord. You are opting for the latter. That is not "confronting" anything, it is a done deal. It is a choice you are allowed to make, to be clear, just as the Brits did, but let's not pretend it's something it isn't.
    - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > It is a vote to adopt a policy that is in breach of your international treaty obligations It was a vote to renegotiate them under threat of disavowing them. That’s fine. > You could talk to them and try to resolve the problems, or you could default on your lease and receive an eviction notice from the landlord It’s totally fair, during those talks, to make clear that if you can’t reach an agreement on the roommate not doing their dishes, you’re prepared to move out. (That doesn’t commit you to moving out if they refuse to budge.)
      - anonymous908213 4mo ago
        > That doesn’t commit you to moving out if they refuse to budge The vote did commit you to amending your federal constitution with a population cap, period. > If the 10-million threshold is exceeded, Switzerland would have to terminate these agreements, including the one with the EU on the free movement of persons after two years. This would also render the other agreements under Bilateral Agreements I null and void. Switzerland’s participation in the EU’s Schengen and Dublin agreements would also be called into question, thereby jeopardising close cooperation in the areas of security and asylum. There is no room for negotiation in it. The government page itself spells out the hardline consequences. But I suppose that's how these votes have to be marketed, isn't it? The Brits were under the delusion that they'd get to have their cake and eat it too, that they could keep any benefits of being in the EU even as they exited it. I wonder how many Swiss were aware they were voting to end their own freedom of movement, that blocking EU immigration would mean they would no longer be able to move elsewhere in the EU themselves. Which, again, is valid if that's the intention, but I suspect a lot of voters like yourself rather believed they were only voting to end freedom of movement for brown foreigners, or voting to negotiate special privileges, when in actuality it was literally a vote to exit treaties.
        JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        > no room for negotiation in it. The government page itself spells out the hardline consequences There is always room for negotiation. Bilaterals is a treaty, not a diktat. And again, 2 years provides time for another referendum. > wonder how many Swiss were aware they were voting to end their own freedom of movement, that blocking EU immigration would mean they would no longer be able to move elsewhere in the EU themselves Everyone did. The question was how the Guillotine clauses would be executed. Which, truly, nobody knows.
  - brainwad 4mo ago
    > Nothing in this referendum directs Berne to do that The initiative text literally directed the Bundesrat to withdraw from the bilaterals 2 years after exceeding 10m if they couldn't be renegotiated.
    - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > withdraw from the bilaterals 2 years after exceeding 10m if they couldn't be renegotiated Sure. This is two years down the road. And it is not Article 50. It would cause a shitshow. But that shitshow could be averted and is less comprehensive than directing an EU exit.
  - jltsiren 4mo ago
    Remember how Brexit started? Cameron wanted to renegotiate the terms of Britain's EU membership. Of course, those negotiations didn't go anywhere, because the EU has a limited ability to make concessions. Any comprehensive deal must be approved unanimously by all member states and some subnational entities. And that just doesn't happen, unless the proposed deal is clearly better than the status quo.
  - bpye 4mo ago
    The EU referendum in the UK was non binding, did not force the use of Article 50, and did not mention leaving the single market or customs union.
  - rsynnott 4mo ago
    > Particularly since it is not a vote for Chexit, but a democratic vote to confront the EU To confront the EU on an absolute red line, yes. The EC is already not thrilled with the Switzerland situation and was fairly clear that it would not allow the UK to negotiate something similar; it is unlikely that it would allow Switzerland to make the deal _worse_. At a certain point it'd just cast off Switzerland entirely. If the UK (70 million people) was unable to get the EC to move on this, it seems implausible that Switzerland (9 million) would be able to.
- FabCH 4mo ago
  I mean technically, it was also rejected by the Kantons-as-entities so if that 5% is unevenly spread, theoretically it could still be rejected by Kantonal majority…
whazor 4mo ago
maybe next time it will be 11M
Arodex 4mo ago
>55% no is… ok? Typical for such votes? Very typical, and even higher than usual. The Swiss have votations all the time. They also can vote by mail. Those who didn't vote had no opinion, or no strong opinion, on the matter. Also, cities who should suffer the most of overcrowding by immigrants voted against, as well as cantons situated at the border, while the backcountry who never see any immigrant voted in favor.
- blockmarker 4mo ago
  Overcrowding by immigrants does not mean the location will vote in favor of restricting immigration. After all, those are the places with the highest number of immigrant voters, who will not support such restrictions.
  - FabCH 4mo ago
    Immigrants can’t vote. Citizens with immigration background have been in the country for 10+ years, because 10 is the minimum for getting citizenship, at which point their voting patterns are more likely to be influenced by other factors and not their immigrant background. Plus, it’s a bit of a phenomenon that many citizens with immigrant background’s tend to vote for stricter immigration policies.
  - Arodex 4mo ago
    Immigrants can't vote on federal votations, dumbass. And it takes more than a decade to have a chance at trying to get naturalized in Switzerland - a process that takes more than a year and thousands of CHF. And naturalized immigrants have been shown to be ready to "pull the ladder behind them", even in countries where it is easier to get it (see the many interviews of Turks voting AfD in Germany or Indians voting Conservative in the UK). Edit: FabCH concurs.
    - kgwgk 4mo ago
      > Immigrants can't vote on federal votations, dumbass. […] And naturalized immigrants can!

by FabCH 4mo ago

Only 58% of the voters voted. 55% no is… ok? Typical for such votes? But of course, the SVP have been launching the same initiative since the 70s, they are unlikely to stop now.

alephnerd 4mo ago

The issue is this means in aggregate only around 3-5% of the total population needs to flip in it's opinions for CHexit to happen - which is very doable over two election cycles. A 55% win with 58% turnout despite how this vote was front and center of media discourse is very worrisome as this shows how disengaged the other 42% are.

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> in aggregate only around 3-5% of the total population needs to flip in it's opinions for CHexit to happen If the marketing were less xenophobic and the cap were derived from some scientific basis, I think I could be persuaded to vote for it. Particularly since it is not a vote for Chexit, but a democratic vote to confront the EU. (Britain triggered Article 50. Nothing in this referendum directs Berne to do that.)
- anonymous908213 4mo ago
  > a democratic vote to confront the EU In what way? It is a vote to adopt a policy that is in breach of your international treaty obligations. Unilaterally breaching your obligations is not a grounds for discussion or compromise, it is simply an exit from them, benefits included. Suppose you're not getting on with your roommate. You could talk to them and try to resolve the problems, or you could default on your lease and receive an eviction notice from the landlord. You are opting for the latter. That is not "confronting" anything, it is a done deal. It is a choice you are allowed to make, to be clear, just as the Brits did, but let's not pretend it's something it isn't.
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > It is a vote to adopt a policy that is in breach of your international treaty obligations It was a vote to renegotiate them under threat of disavowing them. That’s fine. > You could talk to them and try to resolve the problems, or you could default on your lease and receive an eviction notice from the landlord It’s totally fair, during those talks, to make clear that if you can’t reach an agreement on the roommate not doing their dishes, you’re prepared to move out. (That doesn’t commit you to moving out if they refuse to budge.)
    - anonymous908213 4mo ago
      > That doesn’t commit you to moving out if they refuse to budge The vote did commit you to amending your federal constitution with a population cap, period. > If the 10-million threshold is exceeded, Switzerland would have to terminate these agreements, including the one with the EU on the free movement of persons after two years. This would also render the other agreements under Bilateral Agreements I null and void. Switzerland’s participation in the EU’s Schengen and Dublin agreements would also be called into question, thereby jeopardising close cooperation in the areas of security and asylum. There is no room for negotiation in it. The government page itself spells out the hardline consequences. But I suppose that's how these votes have to be marketed, isn't it? The Brits were under the delusion that they'd get to have their cake and eat it too, that they could keep any benefits of being in the EU even as they exited it. I wonder how many Swiss were aware they were voting to end their own freedom of movement, that blocking EU immigration would mean they would no longer be able to move elsewhere in the EU themselves. Which, again, is valid if that's the intention, but I suspect a lot of voters like yourself rather believed they were only voting to end freedom of movement for brown foreigners, or voting to negotiate special privileges, when in actuality it was literally a vote to exit treaties.
      - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        > no room for negotiation in it. The government page itself spells out the hardline consequences There is always room for negotiation. Bilaterals is a treaty, not a diktat. And again, 2 years provides time for another referendum. > wonder how many Swiss were aware they were voting to end their own freedom of movement, that blocking EU immigration would mean they would no longer be able to move elsewhere in the EU themselves Everyone did. The question was how the Guillotine clauses would be executed. Which, truly, nobody knows.
- brainwad 4mo ago
  > Nothing in this referendum directs Berne to do that The initiative text literally directed the Bundesrat to withdraw from the bilaterals 2 years after exceeding 10m if they couldn't be renegotiated.
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > withdraw from the bilaterals 2 years after exceeding 10m if they couldn't be renegotiated Sure. This is two years down the road. And it is not Article 50. It would cause a shitshow. But that shitshow could be averted and is less comprehensive than directing an EU exit.
- jltsiren 4mo ago
  Remember how Brexit started? Cameron wanted to renegotiate the terms of Britain's EU membership. Of course, those negotiations didn't go anywhere, because the EU has a limited ability to make concessions. Any comprehensive deal must be approved unanimously by all member states and some subnational entities. And that just doesn't happen, unless the proposed deal is clearly better than the status quo.
- bpye 4mo ago
  The EU referendum in the UK was non binding, did not force the use of Article 50, and did not mention leaving the single market or customs union.
- rsynnott 4mo ago
  > Particularly since it is not a vote for Chexit, but a democratic vote to confront the EU To confront the EU on an absolute red line, yes. The EC is already not thrilled with the Switzerland situation and was fairly clear that it would not allow the UK to negotiate something similar; it is unlikely that it would allow Switzerland to make the deal _worse_. At a certain point it'd just cast off Switzerland entirely. If the UK (70 million people) was unable to get the EC to move on this, it seems implausible that Switzerland (9 million) would be able to.
FabCH 4mo ago
I mean technically, it was also rejected by the Kantons-as-entities so if that 5% is unevenly spread, theoretically it could still be rejected by Kantonal majority…

whazor 4mo ago

maybe next time it will be 11M

Arodex 4mo ago

>55% no is… ok? Typical for such votes? Very typical, and even higher than usual. The Swiss have votations all the time. They also can vote by mail. Those who didn't vote had no opinion, or no strong opinion, on the matter. Also, cities who should suffer the most of overcrowding by immigrants voted against, as well as cantons situated at the border, while the backcountry who never see any immigrant voted in favor.

blockmarker 4mo ago
Overcrowding by immigrants does not mean the location will vote in favor of restricting immigration. After all, those are the places with the highest number of immigrant voters, who will not support such restrictions.
- FabCH 4mo ago
  Immigrants can’t vote. Citizens with immigration background have been in the country for 10+ years, because 10 is the minimum for getting citizenship, at which point their voting patterns are more likely to be influenced by other factors and not their immigrant background. Plus, it’s a bit of a phenomenon that many citizens with immigrant background’s tend to vote for stricter immigration policies.
- Arodex 4mo ago
  Immigrants can't vote on federal votations, dumbass. And it takes more than a decade to have a chance at trying to get naturalized in Switzerland - a process that takes more than a year and thousands of CHF. And naturalized immigrants have been shown to be ready to "pull the ladder behind them", even in countries where it is easier to get it (see the many interviews of Turks voting AfD in Germany or Indians voting Conservative in the UK). Edit: FabCH concurs.
  - kgwgk 4mo ago
    > Immigrants can't vote on federal votations, dumbass. […] And naturalized immigrants can!