|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Nov 15, 2022 7:52:43 GMT
Switzerland is home to a lot of big corporates they will likely make political donations on the understanding Switzerland has access to the SM. Yes … I agree … but let’s call a spade a spade … these are bribes and backhanders that basically end up in the pockets of the corrupt … and greedy … Swiss people happy to sell their Country’s independence and self-determination and Control into the hands of the highest bidders. We handed over our Country to these same people 40 years ago … and look what happened? … we got invaded and taken over by all sorts of bullying factions and nasty selfish greedy criminal and terrorist loving people and anarchists … who got into our Media … broke our border security … and high-jacked our military forces for their own nefarious quest for World Domination. It’s a slippery slope … once you accept bribes … and join a Mafia … it’s VERY difficult to extricate oneself later without getting seriously ‘punished’ … especially when the tentacles of that corrupt octopus have penetrated so deep into our Establishment we no longer have REAL political representation for The People any more. People here are still in denial over who really runs and controls the UK now … if they think it’s Parliament … the Tories … I’m sorry … they are in for a very rude shock … the Tories and our Media are being manipulated by Mossad and the Globalist Cabal that started the war in Ukraine back in 2014. The conditions imposed by the SM are to flood Switzerland with cheap immigrant labour and criminals …subsequently destabilise the Country and take over … destroy autonomy and Democracy. The EU is a Totalitarian model … surely intelligent people recognise that? At least a British majority did years ago … but we are still fighting the octopus tentacles to break free! … the nature of a corrupt Mafia that never gives up taking revenge … until the renegade member has been made an example of. …. This is the dangerous BEAST Switzerland is flirting with. The EU Commission will only die when the People’s of Europe unite and dismantle the OCTOPUS that controls and defunds them … and breaks their border security … and gives them a pittance in handouts in return. The moneymen of Europe and the Zionist Cabals found an easy way to breach Switzerland’s traditional mountain fortress … they just bribed a few traitors to ‘open the gate’. … and in the criminals flooded … many dressed in very smart expensive suits, Soros Clones … a clever deceptive disguise … wolves in sheep’s clothing. … largely unvetted. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 15, 2022 9:26:46 GMT
We have an FTA with the EU that does not allow freedom of movement of people; that does not require us to make payments to the EU; that does not compel us to apply EU standards and laws. Swiss bilateral deals with the EU cover all such things. We DO have to apply EU standards for products actually. In fact we haven't yet repealed the laws that require everyone in the country to follow EU rules, as I've already said. So we're completely aligned on products. Like Switzerland we're not in the SM so we're both third party countries but we have a closer deal on trade that Switzerland has - which was one big mistake we made. Switzerland has over 100 separate bilateral trade deals on products covering product rules and quotas and there is therefore more reason to expect the EU to check their trade more closely - but the EU don't. Switzerland also have a free movement treaty with the EU, but it's not the same as the FoM integrated into the SM. It's a separate treaty and was negotiated in 1999 and it includes "safeguard" clauses to limit (or even prevent) migration. The EU don't like it and there's a lot of argument about it. It's complicated by the fact that the Swiss govt actually want free movement but the people don't - but the EU have threatened Switzerland with guillotining their treaties. Et cetera. Same old EU. I'm not sure what the "cohesion" payments are but they're not budgetary payments as would be paid for membership of the SM. Basically you need to accept that Switzerland is not in the SM but a third party country trading entirely by bespoke deals. Like we should have been The stuff about the protocol is also nonsense. Read the treaty. Either party can unilaterally withdraw from the agreement if it is causing problems with trade or peace in NI. And NI have already said that it's cutting them off from trade with the mainland. There's also a requirement for parties to act with good faith which the EU isn't doing because the NI protocol is doing exactly what it intended. In fact Ursula van der Leyen threatened to invoke Article 16 herself to try to stop Astra-Zeneca sending vaccines outside the EU - which is a completely inappropriate use of the Article. Typical EU. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 15, 2022 9:56:28 GMT
We have an FTA with the EU that does not allow freedom of movement of people; that does not require us to make payments to the EU; that does not compel us to apply EU standards and laws. Swiss bilateral deals with the EU cover all such things. We DO have to apply EU standards for products actually. In fact we haven't yet repealed the laws that require everyone in the country to follow EU rules, as I've already said. So we're completely aligned on products. Like Switzerland we're not in the SM so we're both third party countries but we have a closer deal on trade that Switzerland has - which was one big mistake we made. Switzerland has over 100 separate bilateral trade deals on products covering product rules and quotas and there is therefore more reason to expect the EU to check their trade more closely - but the EU don't. Switzerland also have a free movement treaty with the EU, but it's not the same as the FoM integrated into the SM. It's a separate treaty and was negotiated in 1999 and it includes "safeguard" clauses to limit (or even prevent) migration. The EU don't like it and there's a lot of argument about it. It's complicated by the fact that the Swiss govt actually want free movement but the people don't - but the EU have threatened Switzerland with guillotining their treaties. Et cetera. Same old EU. I'm not sure what the "cohesion" payments are but they're not budgetary payments as would be paid for membership of the SM. Basically you need to accept that Switzerland is not in the SM but a third party country trading entirely by bespoke deals. Like we should have been The stuff about the protocol is also nonsense. Read the treaty. Either party can unilaterally withdraw from the agreement if it is causing problems with trade or peace in NI. And NI have already said that it's cutting them off from trade with the mainland. There's also a requirement for parties to act with good faith which the EU isn't doing because the NI protocol is doing exactly what it intended. In fact Ursula van der Leyen threatened to invoke Article 16 herself to try to stop Astra-Zeneca sending vaccines outside the EU - which is a completely inappropriate use of the Article. Typical EU. 1) Such difficulties as exist re FOM exist only because Switzerland doesn't wish to accord all protections to EU migrant workers. The EU understandably has issues with that. It is protective of its citizens' rights. We saw that when it refused to negotiate a deal with the UK until the rights of its citizens in the UK were given recognition. 2) The EU got screwed over by Astrazeneca. An independent Belgian court ruled that AZ was in 'serious breach' of its contract. There was a serious shortage of vaccines at the time, so the EU was understandably miffed. Triggering Article 16 would have been a breach of the Protocol, but the EU didn't do it. They almost did, but they didn't. In the circumstances, the EU's approach was quite restrained. Imagine the outcry in the UK if AZ had broken its contract with the UK and failed to supply the vaccines. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 15, 2022 10:16:57 GMT
We have an FTA with the EU that does not allow freedom of movement of people; that does not require us to make payments to the EU; that does not compel us to apply EU standards and laws. Swiss bilateral deals with the EU cover all such things. We DO have to apply EU standards for products actually. In fact we haven't yet repealed the laws that require everyone in the country to follow EU rules, as I've already said. So we're completely aligned on products. Like Switzerland we're not in the SM so we're both third party countries but we have a closer deal on trade that Switzerland has - which was one big mistake we made. Switzerland has over 100 separate bilateral trade deals on products covering product rules and quotas and there is therefore more reason to expect the EU to check their trade more closely - but the EU don't. Switzerland also have a free movement treaty with the EU, but it's not the same as the FoM integrated into the SM. It's a separate treaty and was negotiated in 1999 and it includes "safeguard" clauses to limit (or even prevent) migration. The EU don't like it and there's a lot of argument about it. It's complicated by the fact that the Swiss govt actually want free movement but the people don't - but the EU have threatened Switzerland with guillotining their treaties. Et cetera. Same old EU. I'm not sure what the "cohesion" payments are but they're not budgetary payments as would be paid for membership of the SM. Basically you need to accept that Switzerland is not in the SM but a third party country trading entirely by bespoke deals. Like we should have been The stuff about the protocol is also nonsense. Read the treaty. Either party can unilaterally withdraw from the agreement if it is causing problems with trade or peace in NI. And NI have already said that it's cutting them off from trade with the mainland. There's also a requirement for parties to act with good faith which the EU isn't doing because the NI protocol is doing exactly what it intended. In fact Ursula van der Leyen threatened to invoke Article 16 herself to try to stop Astra-Zeneca sending vaccines outside the EU - which is a completely inappropriate use of the Article. Typical EU. You're banging your head against a loquacious brick wall. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 15, 2022 10:43:29 GMT
1) Such difficulties as exist re FOM exist only because Switzerland doesn't wish to accord all protections to EU migrant workers. The EU understandably has issues with that. It is protective of its citizens rights. We saw that when it refused to negotiate a deal with the UK until the rights of its citizens in the UK were given recognition. 2) The EU got screwed over by Astrazeneca. An independent Belgian court ruled that AZ was in 'serious breach' of its contract. There was a serious shortage of vaccines at the time, and the EU was understandably miffed. Who wouldn't have been? Triggering Article 16 would have been a breach of the Protocol, but the EU didn't do it. They almost did, but they didn't. In the circumstances, the EU's approach was quite restrained. Imagine the outcry in the UK if AZ had broken its contract with the UK and failed to supply the vaccines. 1) Switzerland understandably doesn't want migration undercutting local wages. It also understandably wants to continue state assistance towards its large and thriving private sector. The EU doesn't care about citizen's rights, but it's a good façade to hide behind when its real motivations are to suck independent states into its regulatory and legal orbit. Ensuring such nations 'dynamically align' on migration, social security, key areas of economic policy, and plus having the European Court of Justice as the final arbiter. The Swiss rightly saw this as yet another domination agreement by the EU and rejected it. 2) There was nothing restrained about how the EU conducted itself during the vaccine roll-out. The EU not only threatened triggering Art. 16, it also threated to break the rules based system and law it so often expects others to follow. It threatened to waive intellectual property rights and seize anything produced in its territory as its own. Depicting first hand the ugliness of its 'vaccine-nationalism' that it lectured others on. It applied export bans of Dutch manufactured components of AZ to the UK where it had no legal right to do so. Italy used EU powers to block a quarter of a million doses of AZ bound for Australia. The EU didn't even produce vaccines that was the business of private pharmaceuticals. Yet, the EU ignored the rule of law and decided to either seize and block certain products without a court of law giving them the right to do so. Their behaviour was shambolic and disgraceful. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 15, 2022 10:48:59 GMT
1) Such difficulties as exist re FOM exist only because Switzerland doesn't wish to accord all protections to EU migrant workers. The EU understandably has issues with that. It is protective of its citizens rights. We saw that when it refused to negotiate a deal with the UK until the rights of its citizens in the UK were given recognition. 2) The EU got screwed over by Astrazeneca. An independent Belgian court ruled that AZ was in 'serious breach' of its contract. There was a serious shortage of vaccines at the time, and the EU was understandably miffed. Who wouldn't have been? Triggering Article 16 would have been a breach of the Protocol, but the EU didn't do it. They almost did, but they didn't. In the circumstances, the EU's approach was quite restrained. Imagine the outcry in the UK if AZ had broken its contract with the UK and failed to supply the vaccines. 1) Switzerland understandably doesn't want migration undercutting local wages. Switzerland doesn't want migration undercutting local wages? But Switzerland does want to export into the EU, undercutting prices and profits of EU manufacturers? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 15, 2022 10:49:57 GMT
1) Such difficulties as exist re FOM exist only because Switzerland doesn't wish to accord all protections to EU migrant workers. The EU understandably has issues with that. It is protective of its citizens' rights. We saw that when it refused to negotiate a deal with the UK until the rights of its citizens in the UK were given recognition. 2) The EU got screwed over by Astrazeneca. An independent Belgian court ruled that AZ was in 'serious breach' of its contract. There was a serious shortage of vaccines at the time, so the EU was understandably miffed. Triggering Article 16 would have been a breach of the Protocol, but the EU didn't do it. They almost did, but they didn't. In the circumstances, the EU's approach was quite restrained. Imagine the outcry in the UK if AZ had broken its contract with the UK and failed to supply the vaccines. 1. Free trade deals have NOTHING to do with free movement of people. They simply apply to the movement of goods. The EU "Citizens" have no rights in Switzerland except inasmuch as Switzerland gives them rights in their treaty. 2. There's nothing illegal in triggering Article 16. It's a provision of the treaty. It would have been an inappropriate use of the Article because they needed to take legal action against AZ if they thought they'd broken their contract. But they hadn't broken their contract so Van der Leyen had to back down. The point is that the EU were perfectly happy to invoke Article 16. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 15, 2022 10:52:27 GMT
1) Such difficulties as exist re FOM exist only because Switzerland doesn't wish to accord all protections to EU migrant workers. The EU understandably has issues with that. It is protective of its citizens' rights. We saw that when it refused to negotiate a deal with the UK until the rights of its citizens in the UK were given recognition. 2) The EU got screwed over by Astrazeneca. An independent Belgian court ruled that AZ was in 'serious breach' of its contract. There was a serious shortage of vaccines at the time, so the EU was understandably miffed. Triggering Article 16 would have been a breach of the Protocol, but the EU didn't do it. They almost did, but they didn't. In the circumstances, the EU's approach was quite restrained. Imagine the outcry in the UK if AZ had broken its contract with the UK and failed to supply the vaccines. 1. Free trade deals have NOTHING to do with free movement of people. They simply apply to the movement of goods. The EU "Citizens" have no rights in Switzerland except inasmuch as Switzerland gives them rights in their treaty. 2. There's nothing illegal in triggering Article 16. It's a provision of the treaty. It would have been an inappropriate use of the Article because they needed to take legal action against AZ if they thought they'd broken their contract. But they hadn't broken their contract so Van der Leyen had to back down. The point is that the EU were perfectly happy to invoke Article 16. The negotiations between the EU and Switzerland broke down because Switzerland didn't want to give EU migrants pension rights, etc. The EU insisted that the rights of its workers were paramount. The Swiss objected. No deal resulted. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 15, 2022 10:59:02 GMT
1) Such difficulties as exist re FOM exist only because Switzerland doesn't wish to accord all protections to EU migrant workers. The EU understandably has issues with that. It is protective of its citizens rights. We saw that when it refused to negotiate a deal with the UK until the rights of its citizens in the UK were given recognition. 2) The EU got screwed over by Astrazeneca. An independent Belgian court ruled that AZ was in 'serious breach' of its contract. There was a serious shortage of vaccines at the time, and the EU was understandably miffed. Who wouldn't have been? Triggering Article 16 would have been a breach of the Protocol, but the EU didn't do it. They almost did, but they didn't. In the circumstances, the EU's approach was quite restrained. Imagine the outcry in the UK if AZ had broken its contract with the UK and failed to supply the vaccines. EU ignored the rule of law and decided to either seize and block certain products without a court of law giving them the right to do so. Their behaviour was shambolic and disgraceful. No, Astrazeneca's behaviour was disgraceful. They entered a legally binding contract with the EU, which they broke. They took a completely unprincipled approach, and that was pointed out by an independent Belgian court. Boris got lucky. AZ overpromised. They had legally binding contracts with two customers, but in the event, they had sufficient vaccine quantities to supply only one. Instead of coming to an arrangement with its two customers (the UK and the EU) to supply both in proportion to the amount ordered, AZ completely ignored its contractual obligations with the EU. It could have gone the other way and completely ignored the UK's contract. If it had completely ignored its obligations to the UK, there would have been public outrage on a scale never seen before. So, yes, the EU's response was restrained. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 15, 2022 10:59:20 GMT
1) Switzerland understandably doesn't want migration undercutting local wages. Switzerland doesn't want migration undercutting local wages? But Switzerland does want to export into the EU, undercutting prices and profits of EU manufacturers? Nope. The EU still has a trade surplus with Switzerland. In any case, does that mean a nation like the US who exports to the EU should be grateful for this and in return dole out all such rights to EU citizens and allow them free movement the other way? Yet, you don't see it as understandable that the Swiss don't want their wages undercut by a surplus of cheap labour. Unbelievable. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 15, 2022 11:01:26 GMT
EU ignored the rule of law and decided to either seize and block certain products without a court of law giving them the right to do so. Their behaviour was shambolic and disgraceful. No, Astrazeneca's behaviour was disgraceful. They entered a legally binding contract with the EU, which they broke. They took a completely unprincipled approach, and that was pointed out by an independent Belgian court. Boris got lucky. AZ overpromised. They had legally binding contracts with two customers, but in the event, they had sufficient vaccine quantities to supply only one. Instead of coming to an arrangement with its two customers (the UK and the EU) to supply both in proportion to the amount ordered, AZ completely ignored its contractual obligations with the EU. It could have gone the other way and completely ignored the UK's contract. If it had completely ignored its obligations to the UK, there would have been public outrage on a scale never seen before. So, yes, the EU's response was restrained. But the EU decided to take the law into its own hands even before a court rule against AZ. That isn't following a rules-based-system the EU likes to lecture other on. The EU disgraced themselves and there's no two ways about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 15, 2022 11:01:58 GMT
Switzerland doesn't want migration undercutting local wages? But Switzerland does want to export into the EU, undercutting prices and profits of EU manufacturers? Nope. The EU still has a trade surplus with Switzerland. In any case, does that mean a nation like the US who exports to the EU should be grateful for this and in return dole out all such rights to EU citizens and allow them free movement the other way? Yet, you don't see it as understandable that the Swiss don't want their wages undercut by a surplus of cheap labour. Unbelievable. The EU is concerned about its workers' rights. Either the Swiss will recognise their pension rights, etc., or they won't. If they're not prepared to do that, they won't get what they want. It's that simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 15, 2022 11:05:05 GMT
No, Astrazeneca's behaviour was disgraceful. They entered a legally binding contract with the EU, which they broke. They took a completely unprincipled approach, and that was pointed out by an independent Belgian court. Boris got lucky. AZ overpromised. They had legally binding contracts with two customers, but in the event, they had sufficient vaccine quantities to supply only one. Instead of coming to an arrangement with its two customers (the UK and the EU) to supply both in proportion to the amount ordered, AZ completely ignored its contractual obligations with the EU. It could have gone the other way and completely ignored the UK's contract. If it had completely ignored its obligations to the UK, there would have been public outrage on a scale never seen before. So, yes, the EU's response was restrained. But the EU decided to take the law into its own hands even before a court rule against AZ. That isn't following a rules-based-system the EU likes to lecture other on. The EU disgraced themselves and there's no two ways about it. No, Astrazeneca disgraced themselves. And a first-year law student would have understood that AZ was in serious breach of its contract. The EU's assessment that AZ was in breach was vindicated by an independent Belgian court. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 15, 2022 11:10:47 GMT
Nope. The EU still has a trade surplus with Switzerland. In any case, does that mean a nation like the US who exports to the EU should be grateful for this and in return dole out all such rights to EU citizens and allow them free movement the other way? Yet, you don't see it as understandable that the Swiss don't want their wages undercut by a surplus of cheap labour. Unbelievable. The EU is concerned about its workers' rights. Either the Swiss will recognise their pension rights, etc., or they won't. If they're not prepared to do that, they won't get what they want. It's that simple. The EU isn't interested in free trade unless its acquiring raw materials from Africa or the like, or interest in its citizens. It merely wants significant economic and social influence over those who it believes it can dominate. This Swiss did the right thing walking away from a "framework" deal. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 15, 2022 11:14:00 GMT
But the EU decided to take the law into its own hands even before a court rule against AZ. That isn't following a rules-based-system the EU likes to lecture other on. The EU disgraced themselves and there's no two ways about it. No, Astrazeneca disgraced themselves. And a first-year law student would have understood that AZ was in serious breach of its contract. The EU's assessment that AZ was in breach was vindicated by an independent Belgian court. The EU acted as judge and jury and broke the rules based system. It allowed Italy to block exports to Australia. It blocked Dutch manufactured components of AZ being exported to the UK. It threatened to trigger Art. 16, and threatened to seize private businesses' products that were paid by foreign governments. It disgraced itself on the world stage. |
|
