It's from Rationalwiki. If I can't trust them, then I completely lose my epistemic footing.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Ecopop - The next contraversial Vote made in Switzerland
- Thread starter Grisu
- Start date
It's from Rationalwiki. If I can't trust them, then I completely lose my epistemic footing.
It's from Rationalwiki. If I can't trust them, then I completely lose my epistemic footing.
well, from what I can see the article there is mostly correct, and the "creative" interpretation of some properly put into quotation marks (like "new law") and therefore not to be taken really seriously
warpus
In pork I trust
well, initiatives that violate international law are not allowed and will be rejected by parliament before they come to a vote. So slavery's out, sorry
Didn't that minaret vote violate some sort of international or EU law? Just curious, I could very well be misremembering (or maybe it didn't pass?)
it was a grey area...the discussion was if it violates freedom of religion. It was a rather narrow thing in parliament I think, but in the end I think it was decided that minarets are not necessarily religious (or something like that, probably compareable to a ban of kosher/halal butchering, or the burka-ban they have in france, or at least that was the argument made). So far, nobody challenged that decision (that I know of).
The first nationwide polls are in: at the moment, it looks like this is going to be rejected by a good margin. Though I'm not entirely reassured yet...polls have been off on the Minaret ban and the mass immigration as well.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/little-support-for-population-control--ecopop--initiative/41074800
The two other votes are looking tighter. The gold initiative (which is almost as silly as this thing) is looking tight.
the abolition of the lump sum taxation is looking tight too, with a slight majority for it atm.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/little-support-for-population-control--ecopop--initiative/41074800
The two other votes are looking tighter. The gold initiative (which is almost as silly as this thing) is looking tight.
the abolition of the lump sum taxation is looking tight too, with a slight majority for it atm.
^You have a system where the actual people vote for what happens?
Interesting.
How do you call it?
err, Democracy?
jesting aside, there's basically two cases in which the population gets to vote
Volksinitiative (popular initiative)
If 100k Signatures get collected within 18 Months, a change or amendment to the constitution will be voted on.
Refrendum
In a Referendum the people can challenge a new law made by parliament. Some changes to the law automatically lead to a referendum (such as changes to the constitution). In others the people can force one by collecting 50k signatories.
Esmer
Chieftain
Alwas in favor of more participatory Democracy. If the Swiss vote for it, great. If they vote against it, also great.
The United States would have to vote on about 5 different secession bills every year
well, you'd have to adjust the required signatures to the actual population...so for the US that would be something like 3m signatures.
Still enough that people could finally get rid of Texas.
Looks like you were right, Grisu! Well done, Switzerland!
Ecopop referendum: Swiss 'reject immigration curbs'
Indeed. I was pleasantly surprised by how clearly this thing got shot down
The equally silly gold initiative fared even worse... 78% No
The other two initiatives that we voted on got rejected as well:
Gold-Initiative (demanded that 20% of the national bank's reserves were held in gold and all gold be bunkered in Switzerland (and never sold): 77% No
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/voters-roundly-reject-swiss-gold-initiative/41139376
Rich foreigners can rejoice too, as they can keep their tax perks
59% No
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/voters-retain-tax-perks-for-rich-foreigners/41135066
Gold-Initiative (demanded that 20% of the national bank's reserves were held in gold and all gold be bunkered in Switzerland (and never sold): 77% No
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/voters-roundly-reject-swiss-gold-initiative/41139376
Rich foreigners can rejoice too, as they can keep their tax perks
59% Nohttp://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/voters-retain-tax-perks-for-rich-foreigners/41135066
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
It is kinda interesting that that last rejection was fairly close. Considering that it seems to clearly benefit the Swiss while screwing other countries.
The main argument being made against it (and I'm sure bshup will rejoice at that) was a states rights thingy. The argument was that it should be withing the authority of the canton, not the federal government to decide whether they want it or not. several cantons (such as Basel and Zürich) have already done away with this "Pauschalbesteuerung" by themselves.
Now you might think that Zürch, having already voted to abolish it in their canton would vote to ban it on a national lvel as well. But the fear here was, that since it's often poorer Cantons who do this excessively, the result would be that Zürich would have to pay more into the Finanzausgleich, a system to redistribute from richer to poorer cantons (yes, totally socialism-like
)
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Interesting.
However, if several canons have already overturned that law, the canon-rights issue seems rather cosmetic to me, since apparently the only 'infringement' on them would be that they have to get active and overturn the law if they don't like it.
So I am confused why that aspect was of much prominence.
However, if several canons have already overturned that law, the canon-rights issue seems rather cosmetic to me, since apparently the only 'infringement' on them would be that they have to get active and overturn the law if they don't like it.
So I am confused why that aspect was of much prominence.
well, the thing is, the way it is now, cantons can decide for themselves if they want it or not. If the ban had been accepted, then there would be a federal law, which would supersede all cantonal law, hence they'd lose their right to choose.
Similar threads
