LeSving wrote:
That’s a strange way to view things. Iceland, Norway and (perhaps) Switzerland are all for free flow of capital, goods and people.
I don’t see why you see that as strange, it is the factual truth. The stated, and applied, policy of the EU is that it will not let these countries have one or two of these freedoms without having all three.
The fact that Iceland and Norway actually want all three freedoms only makes it easy (easier?) for them to accept the package deal, it means that for them, it does not contain a bitter pill. Still, if one of them wanted one or two without the other(s), the EU would, as a matter of policy, put them in front of the choice to either swallow the bitter pill that they don’t want or abandon the one or two freedoms that they actually want. Just like it did in practice with Switzerland, which decided in 2014 to end by early 2017 free movement of people with the EU according to its own internal constitutional / legislative processes (by way of referendum / direct “all voters vote”), but backed down (and was given a “fig leaf” to save face) when the EU insisted it would loose free movement of goods and capital at the same time. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiative
lionel wrote:
Just like it did in practice with Switzerland, which decided in 2014 to end by early 2017 free movement of people with the EU according to its own internal constitutional / legislative processes (by way of referendum / direct “all voters vote”), but backed down (and was given a “fig leaf” to save face) when the EU insisted it would loose free movement of goods and capital at the same time.
This was one of the more difficult tests for our direct democracy, but not the first and not the last concerning immigration. The English version of the Wiki falls short on some aspects of it however. In short, the initiative of 2014 clearly had the goal of forcing Switzerland out of Schengen and the agreement about free circulation of people with the EU, but this was not stated in the text specifically, which demanded that
- Switzerland is in sole control over it’s immigration
- Issues Contingents and maximum immigration numbers per year
- currently valid contracts must be re-negotiated within 3 years or if no sucess, they must be exited.
In addition, the article prohibits any new contracts which would violate the text of the article.
The initiative was passed with a margin of 50.3%, so it is valid law now. It was implemented by the Federal Council and Parliament in a way which did not fulfill all the demands of it, particularly the 3rd part which demanded cancellation of contracts. The reasoning behind this kind of interpretation was that the initiative did violate international law and therefore could not be implemented as filed. This led to a 2nd initiative demanding the exit of Switzerland from Schengen and any other contracts of free circulation of people. This initiative was rejected in 2018 with 61% “No” votes. The argument which led to it’s demise primarily followed the same reasoning as the implementation.
I don’t see why you see that as strange, it is the factual truth. The stated, and applied, policy of the EU is that it will not let these countries have one or two of these freedoms without having all three.
That may very well be so, but it’s beside the point. EFTA was established in 1960 as a free trade union. Even the UK was a member in the beginning, as well as several other states, now EU states. When these (other) countries became members of the EU, and at the same time the EU become more integrated, the EEA agreement was made between the remaining EFTA states and the EU. The sole purpose of that agreement was to uphold the “4 freedoms” between EFTA states and the (new and old, especially the new) EU states. Switzerland on the other hand didn’t become a member of the EEA agreement, but instead have bilateral agreements with the EU. Switzerland is still a member of EFTA though.
Lots of stuff is not included in the EEA agreement, as for instance fishing an agriculture.
kwlf wrote:
I’m currently at the stage of reading quite a lot with my son, and I often find it quite alarming to re-read my childhood favourites through adult eyes.
Adult eyes are always different than kids eyes and minds. That imho is one of the problems. With todays cancel and woke culture, there is almost nothing you can read anymore. Heck, take Grim’s fairy tales, they are brutal to the adult eye but just fun for kids. Little red riding hood being eaten by a wulf, which then gets cut open and drowns with his belly full of stone would get the vegan animal rights folks into hysterics. Heck there are people going nuts about the “Never ending story” and “Jim Knopf” by the same author (Whom I had the honor to meet and got signed books from) for ridiculous reasons which caused even rewrites of some scenes.
kwlf wrote:
Some of the racial stereotyping in Tintin is genuinely unpleasant.
Most of those are quite a few decades old. Similar stuff turns up in all the franco-belgian comics, Spirou and Fantasio have such stuff in it, others as well, but I think today the question is what are you actually looking for. In the days these things were conceived, they were simply fun, persiflage and humorous as well as based on knowledge of the current day. Today, people go through books with a fine tooth comb to find something to bitch about. Kids can discern fiction and reality much better than adults who follow every conspiracy theory on YT with rapt attention.
gallois wrote:
And one wonders why comedy is no longer allowed to be funny.
Hell yea. Most of the “classics” in comedy would be hanged, drawn and quartered today. Just think of the SNL crowd in the 1980ties and quite a few others. Most of the British comedy of the time would be torn to pieces today, the Carry On’s , The Two Ronnies just to start from, let alone stuff like Not the Nine O’Clock News or the Young Ones. Comedy per definition takes the Mickey out of someone, otherwise it would not be funny. But that is a no go today. Must not offend anyone or else. Which is darn hard with folks who only are out there looking for something to be offended by.
I read with some satisfaction that some Native American exponents have come to the defence of Karl May. Shows them to really be the folks of honour he described them to be. And this they have not forgotten by the looks of it.
Mooney you forgot 2 of the big ones which would be cancelled today Monty Pythons “The meaning of life” and “The Life of Brian”.
The second of which is still being attacked today. The first is largely forgotten.
gallois wrote:
“The Life of Brian”.
He he. And the perfect spoof of the spoof:
Rowan Atkinson said about this little gem that it originated from the stunned realisation that John Cleese shares initials with Jesus Christ 
Yea, some folks tried to cancel it.
And btw, anyone who does an even much more serious approach to that story gets flack, whatever they do. Remember this one?
1973, we tried to convince our pastor to let us go see it together. Nope. We all went to see it anyhow and loved it.
10 years later, songs from that musical were sung at the very same church at a confirmation service… do tell.
I can not imagine either of those movies ever getting funding in today’s climate. Even though even then the Pythons got their movie funded by George Harrison after all the studios chickened out.
But it wasn’t woke vegans that got ‘The Life of Brian’ cancelled in our local cinema. Or who firebombed a cinema showing ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’.
kwlf wrote:
But it wasn’t woke vegans that got ‘The Life of Brian’ cancelled in our local cinema. Or who firebombed a cinema showing ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’.
Nope. Different philosophy, same character. Must have been the same kind of crowd who burnt the HP books (they obviously had to buy in order to do that)…
That’s why I asked who or which side is really woke (it’s a relatively new concept to me)
Eg there’s the Pro Lifers who would like their views on abortion to be brought into law and everyone who doesn’t is woke, I would imagine might well take up an anthem from “The Meaning of Life” that is “Every Sperm is sacred”
Does that make Pro Lifers the woke brigade?
Woke vegans
I eat mostly veg but carefully avoid using the word “vegan”.
