Talk:2014 Swiss immigration initiative

Results by canton

The map in the article is very clear. Note that it is the French-speaking cantons - with the notable exceptions of Zürich and Zug - which largely voted against the proposal of the Swiss People's Party. Also note that the highest percentage for the ban came from Italian-speaking Ticino. Each area of Switzerland has its own concerns. For years, Ticino has been subject to 'internal' immigration from German-speaking Swiss from more northerly cantons. Zug is an internal tax haven and would have much to lose from foreigners bringing in money. Ditto Zürich which is the banking centre. Schwyz and the central cantons have always been the most conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.80.190 (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that the German-speaking canton of Basel-Stadt also voted against the proposal. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That half canton

The article mentions "14.5 out of 23 cantons" voted yes. How can half a canton agree? No explanation given. Anyway, it is worth putting the statistics per canton, clarifying which were for which were against. Clearly this article needs further expansion. werldwayd (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There are six half cantons: Obwalden and Nidwalden, Basel-Stadt and Basel-Landschaft, Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell Ausserrhoden. They were originally part of three cantons (Unterwalden for the first two, Appenzell and Basel for the others) but they were later split, so they were given only half a vote each to avoid overrepresenting them in the Council of States. I guess it would be as if New York City seceded from New York state, and they were both represented by one senator each.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Like a Swiss cheese

Without explanation "The single market is not Swiss cheese" is not helpful. It seems that that it may mean "You cannot have a single market with holes in it", but other figurative explanations are possible. Unfortunately the source is behind a pay wall (after free quota). Davidships (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Referendum results analysis

Are there any analyses of referendum results data, by regions, education, age of voters and similar criteria? I've read that most of the urban areas voted against and countryside overwhelmingly in favor of quotas, but it's all newspapers' estimates and hard data would be preferable. I assume that there is a positive correlation with age, lack of education and living in small towns, but it needs to be sourced. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close as Not moved due to submission by apparent sockpuppet of indef-blocked user (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime). Also, the only commenter that was not opposing the suggestion was from another sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) BarrelProof (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

---

• Swiss popular initiative "Against mass immigration" → Federal popular initiative "against mass immigration"
• Swiss gun control referendum, 2011 → Federal popular initiative "for the protection against gun violence"

– To have accurate, clear and consistent titles for all articles about Swiss federal popular initiatives (see Category:Popular initiatives (Switzerland)). Rv Req Taqc (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both proposals as they clearly violate the relevant naming convention, WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. There is a need for consistency, so the title of the first should be changed to "Swiss immigration referendum, 2014", in line with the naming convention. However, the second article is already named correctly, and should not be moved. Number 57 16:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it make more sense to follow the format use by all authorities and media in Switzerland (WP:ORIGINAL). And it is confusing to use the term "referendum" here as it is used with a very specific sense in Switzerland (votes initiated by the parliament, unlike initiatives which come from the civil society, see Voting in Switzerland). Rv Req Taqc (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC).

I think it makes more sense to ignore sockpuppets of Soapamalkanmaime. Number 57 16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Number 57, you renamed some of these articles during the ongoing discussion, violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Ms Mitch Kwan (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC).

Another sock, added to the SPI investigation. Number 57 17:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both we don't have to translate de:Eidgenössische Volksinitiative «Gegen Masseneinwanderung» verbatim losing "Swiss". The main meaning of Federal in English attaches to the US, so the term "Swiss" is essential. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Number 57, this looks to be quacking like a full pond, it might be better to close the RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm a little hesitant to as I commented on the RM, even though it's about as obvious as this. Number 57 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Number 57, hmm, unfortunately I commented too. Can we hope the next non-sock/SPA account along will do the honours and make a procedural close please. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both and suggest standardizing in the opposite direction. Category:Popular initiatives (Switzerland) contains exactly four Swiss popular initiatives, two beginning with "Swiss", and two beginning with "Federal". While standardization is desirable here, that standardization could go either way, and it might as well be toward the more informative "Swiss" rather than the less informative "Federal". Besides, in English "Federal" without any qualifier tends to imply the United States federal government, just as "His/Her Majesty" alone tends to imply the monarch of the United Kingdom. D. Dave Davidson (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename/disambiguate?

There is another "Swiss immigration referendum" coming up (Ecopop), on 30 November, so this title is going to be ambiguous. --dab (𒁳) 18:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it to Swiss immigration referendum, February 2014 per the usual disambiguation for multiple elections or referendum on the same topic during the same year. Number 57 19:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

About a deletion of a useless reference

Firstly, I would like to express that my political views (or "bias") are totally irrelevant for this WP text.
Secondly, so far I did not express any political attitude about the subject, at all. And I will not in the future, neither, which would be a fundamental violation of the WP policies anyhow.
I just deleted a reference about a sentence for which the reference does not verify any of the mentioned aspects. According to the WP:VER policy rules I deletde this useless reference, which then has been undone by the User:Reto-schmid-ch.

• Sentence: Although all governing parties except the Swiss People's Party opposed the initiative, the federal council (the Swiss government) announced that it will promptly start implementing the new constitutional provisions and will set to work on re-introducing immigration quotas "without delay".
• Reference deleted: http://www.nzz.ch/meinung/vom-spielraumbei-der-zuwanderung-1.18333165

If you think that the deleted reference verifies a mentioned aspect in he sentence, then please express it here.
-- ZH8000 (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph on the consequences of terminating Free Movement of People, is wrong

The quote "The EU/CH bilateral treaties are all co-dependent, if one is terminated then all are terminated." is ambiguous, if not outright false. Most EU/CH agreements are standalone treaties, some of which have been negotiated in packets (the Bilateral Agreements 1 and 2). There is one guillotine clause around the entire Bilateral Agreements 1, and a second smaller one inside the Bilateral Agreements two.

Terminating the Free Movement of People would trigger the guillotine binding the Bilateral Agreements 1, thus terminating the seven treaties within it (Agreements on aerial resp. terrestrial transit, Agreement on public procurement, on certain agricultural products, (one of) the agreement(s) on research, and the Agreements on Free Movement of People resp. Goods) (Switzerland does not have the Four Freedoms, only two of them).

It would not automatically terminate treaties in the Bilaterals 2 package, e.g. the treaties on statistics, on avoiding double-taxation of pensions of ex EU officials, on anti-fraud measures, the Schengen+Dublin agreements and so on.

It also wouldn't terminate the other standalone treaties, e.g. on market access for non-life insurances or on Custom Cooperations (or on Automatic Exchange of banking Information).

Nor would it affect the EU/CH Free Trade Agreement of 1973.

It would be more correct to say "The EU/CH bilateral treaties on participation in the EU Single Market are both co-dependent, ...", plus ofc the 5 other treaties in that specific package. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.64.24 (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. It would be really helpful if you could find a source (ideally legal but news will do) that confirms what you say. [I believe you, its just a question of the way that wikipedia relies on published sources.]

German/French/Italian language sources are less ideal that English but are acceptable. Is there already a citation at Eidgenössische Volksinitiative «Gegen Masseneinwanderung» (de.wiki) or Initiative populaire « Contre l'immigration de masse » (fr.wiki) that we could use? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

On second thoughts, yes, what you say is actually what the citation in the article actually says. I shall correct the text per your suggestion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Swiss immigration referendum, February 2014 → Swiss immigration referendum, 2014 – All other Swiss popular initiatives mention only the year (and not the month) in the title. Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose There was also a referendum on immigration in November 2014 (see Swiss referendums, 2014#November referendums). Number 57 08:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Swiss minaret referendum, 2009 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)