Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Plus the Swiss gun control laws don't hurt the EU one bit. It's the EU just being a prick.
They are believed to not just hurt the EU by jeopardizing security, many Swiss believe that they are causing problems in Switzerland.
That is fine. Then the Swiss can adjust their own laws. I'm all on board with that.
That's what they just did. This was totally voluntary from Switzerland. They took an internal vote and got an overwhelming majority at around 2/3rds that desired tighter gun control.
They did this because they had very very limited choice and the EU with their fist in their face.
In the beginning (based on limited reading), basically the EU said, "If you wanna play with us, you have to do A, B and C." Swiss state, "Sweet, I will do that so we a can all play together." Now we are playing for hours and hours and the EU comes back and says, "If you wanna keep playing (with mean grin and shaking fist) you have to now do D, E and F, RIGHT NOW, or GET OUT!"
That is how I see it. Top is all off, Swiss helped the EU more than the other way around.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Basically a bait and switch tactic. Aka - Bullying.
Not really. It's a voluntary association that they are free to leave. Even if what you say is accurate and it was a bait and switch, they are no worse off leaving now than never having joined. So there was no bullying.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
and, not really related, literally working on booking our hotel in Switzerland right now.
Man, really wish I could join you. One of these days, I need to get there. I hear they have some of the tallest and longest pedestrian bridges in the world. I love heights because they scare the crap of me.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
They did this because they had very very limited choice and the EU with their fist in their face.
They have every choice. They had the choice to join, and they are free to leave. No one forced them to do either. It's a voluntary association and it has rules. There isn't anything resembling bullying. It's as far from that as can be. No pressure, no fists. It's "if you'd like to join our club there are rules, and they might change over time"... then "if they change, you are free to choose to stay or go". It's as far from bullying as it gets.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
and, not really related, literally working on booking our hotel in Switzerland right now.
Man, really wish I could join you. One of these days, I need to get there. I hear they have some of the tallest and longest pedestrian bridges in the world. I love heights because they scare the crap of me.
Tunnels, too. Some truly insane ones.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
In the beginning (based on limited reading), basically the EU said, "If you wanna play with us, you have to do A, B and C." Swiss state, "Sweet, I will do that so we a can all play together." Now we are playing for hours and hours and the EU comes back and says, "If you wanna keep playing (with mean grin and shaking fist) you have to now do D, E and F, RIGHT NOW, or GET OUT!"
But that's not any worse, in fact quite a bit better, than if they had done that from the beginning. At least CH got to sample the Schengen before hand and see what it was like so that they could make an informed choice. No different than a free trial period on a club membership. Try free for thirty years, then decide if you want to commit or not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Basically a bait and switch tactic. Aka - Bullying.
Not really. It's a voluntary association that they are free to leave. Even if what you say is accurate and it was a bait and switch, they are no worse off leaving now than never having joined. So there was no bullying.
If they derive benefits from the agreement, then there is possible economic loss.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
and, not really related, literally working on booking our hotel in Switzerland right now.
Man, really wish I could join you. One of these days, I need to get there. I hear they have some of the tallest and longest pedestrian bridges in the world. I love heights because they scare the crap of me.
Tunnels, too. Some truly insane ones.
I didn't know that. I'm not really the spelunker but it could be pretty cool.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Basically a bait and switch tactic. Aka - Bullying.
Not really. It's a voluntary association that they are free to leave. Even if what you say is accurate and it was a bait and switch, they are no worse off leaving now than never having joined. So there was no bullying.
If they derive benefits from the agreement, then there is possible economic loss.
But less economic loss than if they were never allowed in in the first place. But this isn't a business thing, this is the free movement of people without needing to go through a checkpoint. It's not like EU membership, it's just a border zone. So the problem is is that CH allowing guns in completely opened the EU borders without the EU having any control. So, in effect, CH was bullying the EU.
-
@pmoncho imagine it from a US perspective....
Imagine if Iowa decided that they were no longer going to stop cocaine from being imported into the US. They legalized cocaine there AND allowed importation and stopped the feds from being able to operate in the airport.
Now cocaine can be legally flow directly to Des Moines, and from there driven into the rest of the US. No legal way to police it, because it's legally arriving in Des Moines, and the highways are open - police aren't allowed to just randomly search you for stuff.
We'd have a cocaine supply problem, because basically unlimited amounts, with no monitoring, would flood in.
That's similar to what is happening to the Schengen. One member was allowing a "hole" in the border for certain types of objects to flow through.
Or imagine if Texas decided to open the Mexican border and allow anyone to come and go, anytime. No matter what is done along AZ, NM, or CA... everyone would just cross in Texas. It would bypass all of the controls that are in place.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Basically a bait and switch tactic. Aka - Bullying.
Not really. It's a voluntary association that they are free to leave. Even if what you say is accurate and it was a bait and switch, they are no worse off leaving now than never having joined. So there was no bullying.
If they derive benefits from the agreement, then there is possible economic loss.
But less economic loss than if they were never allowed in in the first place. But this isn't a business thing, this is the free movement of people without needing to go through a checkpoint. It's not like EU membership, it's just a border zone. So the problem is is that CH allowing guns in completely opened the EU borders without the EU having any control. So, in effect, CH was bullying the EU.
So if CH will have less economic loss, did both show an economic loss or was it EU's gain at CH's expense?
-
The Iowa example seems weird, but is because CH is in the middle of the EU, not an edge. So it is "objects" being "flown in directly" that are potentially leaving the confines of CH and going into the EU. Hence the bizarre example.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Basically a bait and switch tactic. Aka - Bullying.
Not really. It's a voluntary association that they are free to leave. Even if what you say is accurate and it was a bait and switch, they are no worse off leaving now than never having joined. So there was no bullying.
If they derive benefits from the agreement, then there is possible economic loss.
But less economic loss than if they were never allowed in in the first place. But this isn't a business thing, this is the free movement of people without needing to go through a checkpoint. It's not like EU membership, it's just a border zone. So the problem is is that CH allowing guns in completely opened the EU borders without the EU having any control. So, in effect, CH was bullying the EU.
So if CH will have less economic loss, did both show an economic loss or was it EU's gain at CH's expense?
Both lose by slowing at the border. The Schengen is a win for everyone economically. Border controls are costly both in implementation and in wasting the time of people. Even if everyone can still move through, which they could, they would need to have people inspecting customs.
What is expected if they hadn't changed their law, is that customs points would have been turned back on (they don't need to build them, they are still there, I've been in them) and cops would need to inspect cars or bags going through to make sure guns weren't being carried through. A really simple, efficient border, but still a border.
Today, you can walk over the border anywhere in CH with zero oversight. It's all wide open. If they went back to the old borders, you'd have to go through customs control and wait in lines. It would be friendly, fast, free, visa-free, no stamp, etc.... but even a small queue at a check point is a world different than "walk through any field".
-
To compare to the US again, if you are familiar with the Canadian border, imagine if the US and Canada suddenly opened the border. No crossings, just wide open border. People would flood back and forth all the time. Cheaper gas down here, Beavertail pastries up there. You'd shop, eat, chill in the opposite country as easily as in your own. Not like we had it in the 1970s, way more open. Cross literally anywhere. No lines, no cops to talk to... nothing but a sign saying "welcome to Canada, eh?"
It would make for some cool movement. We've never had that, but it would be cool. The EU and CH have that today, and it is amazing.
-
If Canada opened the border like that, Starbucks would cease to exist as everyone would get real Tim Hortons!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
The Iowa example seems weird, but is because CH is in the middle of the EU, not an edge. So it is "objects" being "flown in directly" that are potentially leaving the confines of CH and going into the EU. Hence the bizarre example.
I understood why you used it. It is the same issue marijuana legalization in the US. EU has to police it just like neighboring states of Colorado.
-
The city that would really be hit is Basel. Three borders run through the city. People who live there function as tri-nationals on a daily basis. It would be like having to cross one border to get your coffee, and another to go to the office, and a third to get home at night. Total nightmare.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
The Iowa example seems weird, but is because CH is in the middle of the EU, not an edge. So it is "objects" being "flown in directly" that are potentially leaving the confines of CH and going into the EU. Hence the bizarre example.
I understood why you used it. It is the same issue marijuana legalization in the US. EU has to police it just like neighboring states of Colorado.
Almost. But add the bit about the airport, that's key. In CO right now, anything that leaves CO had to be made in CO. They can't ship marijuana in or out. (But they can produce it, so that's nearly unlimited.) But in the CH example, stuff flies over the borders and into the middle, then is free to travel around. So the source objects could come from anywhere, not only be created inside CH.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
The Iowa example seems weird, but is because CH is in the middle of the EU, not an edge. So it is "objects" being "flown in directly" that are potentially leaving the confines of CH and going into the EU. Hence the bizarre example.
I understood why you used it. It is the same issue marijuana legalization in the US. EU has to police it just like neighboring states of Colorado.
Almost. But add the bit about the airport, that's key. In CO right now, anything that leaves CO had to be made in CO. They can't ship marijuana in or out. (But they can produce it, so that's nearly unlimited.) But in the CH example, stuff flies over the borders and into the middle, then is free to travel around. So the source objects could come from anywhere, not only be created inside CH.
They law may state they cannot ship in or out but there is nothing stopping the people from doing so. By plane or car. No stopping the law breakers. Just like the CH/EU situation.
The only people the EU will be hurting is the law abiding folks. Especially those in the town you mentioned above.
Again, I am not saying CH can not/should not increase their gun laws to match the EU. The CH just shouldn't have a fist in their face to force them to do it to keep an accord going.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Plus the Swiss gun control laws don't hurt the EU one bit. It's the EU just being a prick.
They are believed to not just hurt the EU by jeopardizing security, many Swiss believe that they are causing problems in Switzerland.
That is fine. Then the Swiss can adjust their own laws. I'm all on board with that.
That's what they just did. This was totally voluntary from Switzerland. They took an internal vote and got an overwhelming majority at around 2/3rds that desired tighter gun control.
They did this because they had very very limited choice and the EU with their fist in their face.
In the beginning (based on limited reading), basically the EU said, "If you wanna play with us, you have to do A, B and C." Swiss state, "Sweet, I will do that so we a can all play together." Now we are playing for hours and hours and the EU comes back and says, "If you wanna keep playing (with mean grin and shaking fist) you have to now do D, E and F, RIGHT NOW, or GET OUT!"
That is how I see it. Top is all off, Swiss helped the EU more than the other way around.
OK sure, but I'm assuming they did that to their own citizens first - i.e. passed a new law in the EU for those higher restrictions... now that the EU has higher restrictions - they are requiring anyone else who still wants to play to conform.
Assuming Scott is right, and 2/3rds voted for it.. then clearly the people felt the tighter laws were worth what they are still getting from the EU, more than what they loose from the new laws. Otherwise, why didn't they just leave?
