Tag Archive: Switzerland

Democracy at work in Switzerland – but not in the EU!

As transport, in all its forms, is an EU competence it is not surprising that they are turning their attention to all the ports in their empire. The European Commission has launched a new initiative to improve port operations and onward transport connections at 319 key seaports along Europe’s coastline. The EU Commission of of the opinion that the guidelines and legal changes being proposed will help port operators upgrade their services and facilities as well as giving them more financial autonomy. It is not as if they are not providing information – we have an infographic here;  a press release; the text of a speech on the subject by Siim Kallas; and even a link to Kallas’ webpage.

When one looks at the list of the 319 ports, 43 of these are in the United Kingdom – which is the largest number of all the Member States that have a seaboard; and being an island it is hardly surprising. What it is also necessary to realise is that this intended upgrade to our ports ties in with current work being carried out on our roads. For example it will be noted that among the list of ports is Felixstowe – now consider why the EU would contribute €11,670,000 out of a total cost of €58,357,800 to enhance what the EU have termed Priority Project 13 (United Kingdom/Ireland/Benelux road axis).

What we have here is £millions of the State’s money (and do bear in mind the State has no money of its own) being spent on road improvement, not because our caring national government think it should be done, but because our real government have decided they want it done. In this regard and bearing in mind the EU “contributed” just 20% of the A14 improvement costs, just how much will they “contribute” to what will no doubt amount to £billions to improve the ports of London, Felixstowe, Harwich, Southampton, Milford Haven, to name just a few – and which no doubt are among the 83 priority ports?

Taxpayer’s money is involved in all the work planned so will we be told that the money being forcibly “hiked” out of our pockets is being so done because our puppet government have been instructed to so do? Contrast what happened in Switzerland when voters  from across the northeastern demi-canton, or region, of Appenzell Innerhoden flooded in to vote and, among other subjects, give their blessing to a seven-million -franc ($7.5-million) rail project. Is that not how democracy should work? Rather than being told they will pay for a project, the Swiss are asked whether they agree to pay. An element of Referism, which is encapsulated within the 6 Demands?

We, the people, are the true rulers of our nation, not the 650 and their sycophants in NGOs and Quangos. It is time we, the people, asserted our authority, so come on – you know it makes sense!

 

 

2013
05/10

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:



COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

If one country can solve the problem of rail travel?

An article in The Foreigner, Norwegian news in English, bemoans the “delights” of train travel in both Norway and the United Kingdom.

Norway, unlike the United Kingdom, could be said to suffer from adverse weather conditions among other “problems” – but if one country can overcome similar weather conditions and other “problems”, why can’t Norway and the United Kingdom?

Just asking……….

 

Now, that is the way to deal with integration!

Courtesy of swsissinfo.ch we learn that the highest court in Switzerland has ruled that integration of foreigners is more important to Swiss society than their religious beliefs.

If only the highest court in our land held sway?

Hows about we regain the ability to tell any foreigner: you want to live here, then you abide by our rules!

Oh and by the way, those rules are decided by we the people.

 

2013
05/06

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Vote for the same, you get the same

“For some years, in Britain and the rest of Europe, politics has been dominated by foxes who knew (or at least pretended to know) many things. They were of varying quality: some sleek and impressive, others akin to those mangy specimens you find in cities. But whatever their attributes, the foxes also presided over a still-ongoing, continent-wide car crash. So today, in a time of apparently endless and insoluble crises, the attraction of those who know one big thing is very considerable. And if that one big thing happens to be the big thing of your day? Well then perhaps it is right that we’ve arrived at the age of the hedgehog. [......] Voters may be saying many things. But among them is that we have a rotten system and rotten, identikit, politicians. A growing number are also saying that we are in a rotten, lousy European Union we do not want to be in. But most of all people are saying what anybody with eyes can see: that the foxes have let us down. This being the case, perhaps it is inevitable that we should now put our trust in hedgehogs. Especially when it appears that the one thing some hedgehogs knew all along was the one thing that turned out to have been right.”

Source:

We can argue for ever and a day whether the hedgehogs do have – and are – the answer, or whether they too are not also identikit politicians themselves. The author in the Wall Street Journal article hits the nail on the head when he writes that we have a rotten system; that we have rotten identikit politicians who have let us down; and the point about our being in a rotten, lousy European Union goes without saying.

Someone remarked on Twitter today: “strange job politics, you start off as an adviser and work your way up to being advised”. This compliments a comment I made a day or two ago, that with all the learning politicians do – and are presently doing – they omitted to inform us, when asking us to elect them to govern, that they required “on the job” training.  I would suggest that the electorate, or at least that part of the electorate that bother to vote, have not actually picked up on those two points; but what we are informed, by various pundits, is that they recognise something is askew with not only our political system but also our system of democracy. It is ironic therefore that on May 2nd the electorate, recognising that there is indeed something wrong and in seeking an escape from a rotten system and identikit politicians, turned to those of – and in – exactly that from which they wish to escape.

When questioning people on a range of matters it becomes obvious that they are not completely of the right, left, or centre. They are of the right on some matters, of the left on some and of the centre on others. This is the problem with our political system and system of democracy because we are forced to choose, come election time, from a menu/manifesto “Table d’hôte”, when in fact we would rather choose from “À la carte”. If the people in one part of a country can decide on, for example, taxes, rental issues and which language is spoken in primary schools – then why can’t we in any part of our country? Why can’t we have a similar system of choosing “À la carte”, thus being able to reject certain dishes that our political chefs have concocted and which we may not like?

Needless to say, the country to which I link is Switzerland and the “a la carte” option is that encapsulated in their system of direct democracy. When wishing to rid ourselves of a rotten system of democracy, one that produces rotten, identikit politicians, we should seriously consider adopting a system of democracy similar to that of Switzerland. After all, whats not to like in the idea that it is the people that should and can  “call the shots”, rather than the politicians? That change is possible in this country; that there is another way whereby the people of this country can reclaim their sovereignty and independence, can be achieved by the adoption of 6 Demands which in total solve every problem from which we currently suffer.

I repeat, whats not to like?

 

 

 

2013
05/06

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:






COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Mats Persson flying his kite again

I notice that Mats Persson has taken to reissuing an article he published in January this year in which he rubbishes the idea of the UK ceasing its full membership of the European Union and instead joining EFTA and the EEA.

Persson’s ability to be economical with the actualité on the matter of Norwegian influence in shaping law and on the ability to refuse to implement law issued by Brussels was as preposterous back in January as it is now.

Having been taken to task on these assertions that he now attempts to repeat (do read the comments section of the OE article linked to), methinks Persson forgets that some of us do not have short memories.

Either that or Persson is a bigger fool than he appears.

Just saying.

Update Forgot to mention that having made a fool of himself, he then gets called as an “expert witness” by a Select Committee

2013
05/01

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:


COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Now there’s a laugh…..

Courtesy of Presseurop comes notice of an article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) entitled: “Dare to be a little more Swiss!” in which the authors call for the introduction of elements of direct democracy in the EU and make the point that political representation and responsiveness is a matter of the structure that binds citizens and policy-makers and that in a democracy, politicians ought to act on behalf of the people, and theoretically, the citizen is the true ruler. The article also states:

“The results are rather clear and robust: when the citizens have a direct voice in how their own money is spent, regional authorities spend less on government. They spend more prudently, and the fiscal and social security burden is lower. Their indebtedness also tends to be smaller when citizens instead of governments determine the financial management of the public sector through financial referenda.”

To even contemplate that the EU and the principles of direct democracy and “referism” are compatible is to doubt the sanity of those suggesting it – which in the case of Michael Wohlgemuth is understandable seeing as he is Director of Open Europe (Berlin) – but I digress.

Why are the two incompatible? The answer is obvious: in representative democracy politicians say: “We decide, you pay”, whereas in direct democracy the people say: “We decide, we pay”.

Theoretically, the citizen is the true ruler – then it is about time that theory was put into practice. Lets do it, people!

More on Swiss imposition of immigration levels

Why is it that invariably it becomes necessary to rely on foreign media, or the blogosphere, for the truth about matters of interest?

Recently the Swiss announced a clamp down on the number of immigrants that they are prepared to accept from EU Member States; a story commented on by Richard North, EUReferendum.  Ian Parker-Joseph draws to my attention an article in the Maltese Independent on this story, from which the last paragraph is important:

“However, Switzerland wishes to curb the negative effects that EU immigration has on areas such as spatial planning, infrastructure and affordable housing. It is felt the increase of EU immigrants has added to the increase in house prices. The Swiss Federal Council is aware that these restrictions can only be used as a short term measure. It is therefore planning to hold two referendums on immigration in the future to provide a long term solution to the immigration issue.” (my emphasis)

IPJ comments to me that he has not seen any mention of the two impending referendums in the British media – and neither have I. Richard North did mention this fact in his article, likewise did Swissinfo in two articles on their website - here and here. While writing about this story, readers may be interested to read, from the same source,  an interview with Richard Jones, the EU’s Ambassador to Bern who comments on this latest Swiss curb.

One can be forgiven for being accused as a conspiracy theorist when a belief is held that our press is as free as the proverbial duck’s arse.

Yet again, just saying……….

 

Appenshun!

A poor pun – but it will suffice.

Two articles on the subject of pension provision appear in world newspapers today, one in the Guardian CiF and the other in Die Tageszeitung (courtesy: Presseurop); albeit the Guardian article is about the welfare state whereas the second is devoted to pension provision – but all part of the same “subject”?

And for how long have Labour – and every other main political party – been treating the NHS and Welfare State as sacred cows, feeding both as both grow fatter and fatter, especially the latter where state workers are concerned. – ignoring the faults that their tinkering, which only exacerbates the problem, with an original concept that is now totally outmoded – not just with the passing of time but also because of the added burdens placed upon both by our membership of the European Union.

Where pensions for state workers are concerned the cost of provision  is mushrooming beyond belief, especially with the added ingredient of people leading longer lives – and it is a burden on the public purse that is unsustainable. Likewise on welfare, but of course – and needless to say – the Swiss have the answer.

Again, just saying…….

 

 

Democracy in action

At the moment in Switzerland it is up to parliament to elect individual members of the seven-strong cabinet. In the wake of parliamentary elections, the entire cabinet has to win the endorsement of the House of Representatives and the Senate for a four-year term. The government cannot be brought down by no-confidence votes and there is no impeachment procedure. Cabinet members are free to decide themselves on their resignation. The cabinet is not bound by a formal coalition agreement between the different political parties. Based largely on voter support at the ballot box, the four main parties have shared out the seats for more than 40 years under an informal agreement, one known as the Magic Formula. The cabinet is currently made up of two representatives each of the centre-right Radicals and the centre-left Social Democrats. The remaining three seats are shared by the centre-right Christian Democrats, the right-wing Swiss People’s Party and the Conservative Democrats. Under the Swiss system, the seven-member cabinet takes collective decisions and the result of votes by individual members is not made public.

But back in the beginning of 2010 something happened – an “initiative” by the Swiss People’s Party (a right-wing party) was launched, one that proposed members of the Cabinet should not be chosen by their colleagues, but by the people; in other words they should be voted into office. In July 2011, just within the statutory 18 month deadline for gathering the required number of signatures, a petition was handed into the Federal Chancellery; and on 9th June this year the people will make their choice. From this link it will be seen the omens for the success of this initiative do not look that good when considering previous attempts. (Not that I saw any mention of this vital question about democracy in our media – but I digress…..).

As well as the foregoing matter readers will note from the link that there are other matters on which the Swiss electorate will make decisions on June 9th. Voters also have a say on a parliamentary decision to tighten and speed up asylum procedures, a proposal challenged by the political left. Beside the nationwide ballots there are also a number votes at a cantonal and local level scheduled on June 9.

In the foregoing link one can read the pro and con arguments of various academics and politicians on the subject of this initiative – but let us carry out a little experiment. In the 6 Demands, Demand #3 calls for elected prime ministers who can appoint their own cabinet/ministers – so, in light of the Swiss initiative, my question to readers is: does Demand #3 need amending? Should the status quo remain but be more representational of party seats? Should votes in cabinet be made public? Should both prime minister and cabinet be subject to no-confidence votes? Bearing in mind the content of my post yesterday, should there be different conditions twixt national and local government?

Just asking……….

 

 

Remember 1999-2002? What if?

We all no doubt recall the years 1999-2002 during which the man who eventually thought he had saved the world sold half the UK’s gold.

Meanwhile, over in Switzerland……….

 

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012