swiss say Yes to Schengen/Dublin (and other stuff)

bonkey

Victo mentioned (and linked to) some of the crazy posters which were used by the No advocates of this treaty to try and win the day using emotion rather than by reasoned argument.

The good news is that the No campaign failed. As of yesterday, the Swiss people voted for acceptance of the Schengen/Dublin treaty.

I'm guessing, though, that in the light of the media-frenzy surrounding the EU constitution's troubles, this issue - which could be seen as a vote of confidence in some of the EU's existing structures at least - will get mostly ignored.

In the same referendum, the Swiss people were - for the first time - given a say on the issue of gay rights. At stake this time round was whether or not gay couples would be granted the same legal rights as married couples in the areas of pensions, inheritance and taxes.

This too passed, and while not bringing total legal equality (fertility treatment and adoption are the two main areas where inequality remains, I believe), I think its a positive move.

All in all, another good result from the Swiss people, I think.

jc

swiss

Sounds good.

There is just one thing that I find a little confusing, and that is the terminology Schengen/Dublin. From my reading of the link you provided it would appear that this is a convention on the treatment and processing of asylum seekers. Ireland, and as a consequence Dublin, is not part of the Schengen acquis since our border controls are realised in tandem with the UK as codified in the Anglo-Irish treaty (IIRC).

Or perhaps it relates to two separate accords, Schengen and Dublin, in which case I have not heard of the latter.

Unsurprisingly, I applaud the result of the second vote in favor of "other stuff".

Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption here.
But by Dublin treaty, do they mean that the referendum voted on aspects of the constitution agreed in Dublin which pertained to matters involving Switzerland eg immigration control or whatever.

I've not read the constitution in totality, just aspects and commentary on it.
I'd personally have a number of reservations about that constitution but am reserving comment untill I've read it in more detail.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Victo mentioned (and linked to) some of the crazy posters which were used by the No advocates of this treaty to try and win the day using emotion rather than by reasoned argument.

No, that was me.

Sarsfield

As far as I remember, the Dublin treaty is a few years old and sets out the rule that asylum seekers must be processed in the EU country in which they first arrived.

For example, if someone turns up in London seeking asylum, having entered the EU via Greece, the British authorities can send them straight back to Athens for them to deal with it.

I guess Switzerland is included in this now.

bonkey

swiss wrote:

There is just one thing that I find a little confusing, and that is the terminology Schengen/Dublin. From my reading of the link you provided it would appear that this is a convention on the treatment and processing of asylum seekers.

Its all explained here

(Thats a Google cache of this

Or perhaps it relates to two separate accords, Schengen and Dublin, in which case I have not heard of the latter.

Synopsis of teh above links: Yup, it is indeed.

Apologies to The Corinthian for confusing him with Victor, incidentally

As far as I remember, the Dublin treaty is a few years old and sets out the rule that asylum seekers must be processed in the EU country in which they first arrived.

My understanding is that it doesn't specify which country is responsible...just that only one country will be.

In other words, once you apply in one Dublin Treaty nation, you cannot reapply in others should you be unsuccessful.

jc

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Apologies to The Corinthian for confusing him with Victor, incidentally

Indeed. I need a shower after that...

Doctor Benway

Earthman wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption here.
But by Dublin treaty, do they mean that the referendum voted on aspects of the constitution agreed in Dublin which pertained to matters involving Switzerland eg immigration control or whatever.

If, by this, you mean the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union (dat wot d'French 'n' d'Dutch just said Nah ta), then it wasn't agreed in Dublin. It was agreed in Brussels (during the Irish Presidency of the EU, about a year ago).

Thanks Doc and others,I do believe its fairly clarified.
I s'pose I could have googled for the actual Swiss referendum and news stories on it...but I knew someone here would set me right eventually

bonkey

Ah yes. The time-honoured "lazy research" technique.

And I fell for it.

Gah.

jc

bonkey

Interestingly, there's been a new development...

"She added that it would not be possible for Switzerland to join the Europe-wide passport-free zone if the country refused to lift labour restrictions for all EU citizens."

I can't understand how the EU is only making this issue known now, rather than before the Swiss went to ratify. Not only that, but I'm somewhat staggered by the hypocracy, considering that Ireland is the only EU nation which doesn't impose labour restrictions on the same group.

Kinda "do what we say, but not as we do" approach.

jc