[anonymous908213]

> a democratic vote to confront the EU

In what way? It is a vote to adopt a policy that is in breach of your international treaty obligations. Unilaterally breaching your obligations is not a grounds for discussion or compromise, it is simply an exit from them, benefits included.

Suppose you're not getting on with your roommate. You could talk to them and try to resolve the problems, or you could default on your lease and receive an eviction notice from the landlord. You are opting for the latter. That is not "confronting" anything, it is a done deal. It is a choice you are allowed to make, to be clear, just as the Brits did, but let's not pretend it's something it isn't.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It is a vote to adopt a policy that is in breach of your international treaty obligations

It was a vote to renegotiate them under threat of disavowing them. That’s fine.

> You could talk to them and try to resolve the problems, or you could default on your lease and receive an eviction notice from the landlord

It’s totally fair, during those talks, to make clear that if you can’t reach an agreement on the roommate not doing their dishes, you’re prepared to move out. (That doesn’t commit you to moving out if they refuse to budge.)

[anonymous908213]

> That doesn’t commit you to moving out if they refuse to budge

The vote did commit you to amending your federal constitution with a population cap, period.

> If the 10-million threshold is exceeded, Switzerland would have to terminate these agreements, including the one with the EU on the free movement of persons after two years. This would also render the other agreements under Bilateral Agreements I null and void. Switzerland’s participation in the EU’s Schengen and Dublin agreements would also be called into question, thereby jeopardising close cooperation in the areas of security and asylum.

There is no room for negotiation in it. The government page itself spells out the hardline consequences.

But I suppose that's how these votes have to be marketed, isn't it? The Brits were under the delusion that they'd get to have their cake and eat it too, that they could keep any benefits of being in the EU even as they exited it. I wonder how many Swiss were aware they were voting to end their own freedom of movement, that blocking EU immigration would mean they would no longer be able to move elsewhere in the EU themselves. Which, again, is valid if that's the intention, but I suspect a lot of voters like yourself rather believed they were only voting to end freedom of movement for brown foreigners, or voting to negotiate special privileges, when in actuality it was literally a vote to exit treaties.

[JumpCrisscross]

> no room for negotiation in it. The government page itself spells out the hardline consequences

There is always room for negotiation. Bilaterals is a treaty, not a diktat. And again, 2 years provides time for another referendum.

> wonder how many Swiss were aware they were voting to end their own freedom of movement, that blocking EU immigration would mean they would no longer be able to move elsewhere in the EU themselves

Everyone did. The question was how the Guillotine clauses would be executed. Which, truly, nobody knows.

[anonymous908213]

> Bilaterals is a treaty, not a diktat.

The "diktat" is the thing you just voted on which says "we will not negotiate". There is always room for negotiation until you vote for a law that says "no negotiations, we are now legally mandated to do X".

> 2 years provides time for another referendum.

Voting for a no-negotiations amendment to your constitution as a negotiation tactic with the idea that you will later pass another constitutional amendment in a small window of time to revoke it is some kind of 4D checkers strategising that I suppose I am not enlightened enough to grasp.

[JumpCrisscross]

> There is always room for negotiation until you vote for a law that says "no negotiations, we are now legally mandated to do X”

Which isn’t a thing for a sovereign. Past sovereigns can’t bind future ones. Laws can always be repealed.

> some kind of 4D checkers strategising that I suppose I am not enlightened enough to grasp

Neither was I. Hence my vote against. Doesn’t mean the core concept is flawed, or that we have to accept EU treaties as perpetual because my ancestors voted for it to be that way.

[brainwad]

The party that proposed this vote has always opposed the treaties with the EU and yes this whole thing is just a thinly disguised way to repudiate the treaties as soon as practicable. They know what they are getting, it's not a cake-and-eat-it-too thing.