4 ms·
You mean except for the part where they previously agreed not to do so?
by a_c_s 13y ago
You mean except for the part where they previously agreed not to do so?
- zimbatm 13y agoYou mean before they started getting 80k immigrants a year ? EDIT: 80k / year represents ~1% of the actual population
- RivieraKid 13y agoIf it was more than an informal agreement, then yes, except for that I don't see a problem.
- jvm 13y agoWhen they made the agreement, they included a "safeguard clause" indicating that the deal would be off if immigration exceeded a particular amount. It has. I'm completely against the policy, but it's not a violation of the agreement.
- paradoja 13y ago> I'm completely against the policy, but it's not a violation of the agreement. That is not clear. EU officials say that it is indeed a violation of the agreement: “The measures adopted today by the Swiss government are contrary to the agreement on the Free Movement of Persons, since they differentiate between groups of member states.” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f70bc54-ad0c-11e2-9454-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2RQRJECSf http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f70bc54-ad0c-11e2-9454-00144feabd...
- Kudzu_Bob 13y agoIf it is not clear whether it's a violation of the agreement, then it is dishonest to accuse them of being in violation of the agreement.
- paradoja 13y agoIt is not. One side may have no doubt it is a violation of the agreement, and say so. There is no problem with that.
- Kudzu_Bob 13y agoIf I don't know whether my laptop has been stolen or simply forgotten in some coffee house but I accuse you of taking it because I don't like your politics, that makes me a liar.
- paradoja 13y agoYes. And that has no relation with what we are talking about. If the Swiss government doesn't follow the written rules of the agreement, it is in violation of them. Saying so doesn't make one a lier.