Swiss vote to limit immigration quotas.

     The Swiss people once again have voted contrary to the wishes of their government. On Sunday Feb. 9,  by a country-wide referendum, some 50.3% of the voters –  just 30,000 more votes than the contrary,  backed a proposal by one of the minor political parties to have quotas for immigrants. This  will require the government to renegotiate treaties with the European Union countries, a very awkward  situation. For until then citizens from most EU members states could freely move to  and work in Switzerland, just as the Swiss could do so within most EU states.

         Many business groups have complained about the result, suggesting that jobs could be compromised, but the majority of the Swiss were not swayed. They seemingly fear that increasing number of immigrants are not good for their federation; some point to an especially large number of new Muslim immigrants as being part of the problem. Switzerland’s healthy economy and high salaries had, it seems,  caused about ¼ of all the 8 million people now living there to come in, in recent years, from other countries.  Indeed, according to the National Post article of Feb. 11, some 80,000 people had moved to little Switzerland just last year.

         Regardless, once again the Swiss people have made their opinions  felt. Whether or not the end result will cause them undue problems, only time will tell. But the peoples’ voices are what count in Switzerland. No doubt many of the 26 EU states which have encouraged increased movement of peoples, will be considerably dismayed. Brussells has already voiced annoyance. They will   try to find ways to penalize the Swiss – which must negotiate all treaties on a bilateral basis. This is because it previously had chosen (by a previous citizen vote) not to officially be a part of the actual Union.

        

        

         

Senate Reform - by referendum - in Canada!

        Referendums; – here is an example, but on a smaller scale, of a process just like that often followed in many US states,  other international areas, and, especially,  Switzerland. Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning, and former Alberta cabinet minister, Ted Morton are asking Canadians to vote on the future of the Senate. This is via responding to the website – www.reformorabolish.ca The alternatives are shown therein – to abolish the Senate now, or by 2025, keep the status quo, or major or minor reforms.

         The two will be presenting the results at a party convention in late February. According to the National Post, in which this story appeared, the Conservative Party has already asked the Supreme Court what it would take to reform or abolish this important upper chamber of our democratic system.

         Surely this method – asking the people what they think, is a vital manner to answer this important question, in a supposedly democratic country – such as our own.  I must say that I would prefer it to be more broadly communicated (within the whole country) - but, it clearly is the right direction. Why not check it out? 

New Zealand's Recent Referendum

       New Zealand has a slightly strange manner of effecting citizens' views on issues, via referendums. It does have a manner of selecting issues upon which they should have the right to have a vote; and a recent one relates to an interesting matter re: asset sales amidst protests over drilling for oil. More than 10% of the voters ( as required) presented a petition calling for the vote. It seems that most of the efforts behind the vote were encouraged by political parties in a minority, within the parliament.
     This has been within their laws since 1993. Three million voters received the referendum  document in mid  November.   But, apparently, according to the Economist magazine of Dec. 6, the government does not actually have to listen to the voters wishes if it does not want to. And so, apparently, if the turnout happens to be low or for whatever other reason the government my come up with, it is not legally bound by the result - and may, indeed take no heed of it.
       The majority of voters (67%) did say they did not want to see the partial sale of some state-owned assets. But some were already sold, and Mr. Key, the Prime Minister did not, it seems, as yet, see a reason, due to a voter turnout of only 40%, to follow more seriously, the results.
       Pretty odd - to go to such trouble, and indeed some expense, and then for the government to be able to ignore what their citizens wish. Surely such government does not have much right to continue, one would conclude - but then, that is New Zealand.

      

Columnists concerned about democracy - but not via citizen voting?

        Does is not seem odd? The many, recent editorials and comments by prominent columnists in Canada about – ideas to change the manner of selecting and retaining  leadership there. Right now a party selects its leader at a convention of a few thousand members. If that party wins the majority of seats in the subsequent election, that leader becomes prime minister. After being so chosen, such leader has very great control over the wishes of the other representatives. The leaders’ “whip” can whip  any of them, into the leaders’ bidding on votes within the legislature. He does this by ensuring that monies do, or do not, get to that ridings projects; or by kicking  out such rep from  various committees, or ministries.   The leader can even veto subsequent nominations within various ridings, if he does not approve of the local ridings’ wishes.  Ideas to alter these situations, aim  to  improve our democracy, which recent polls suggest is in very low esteem among the citizens.

         But no discussions that I have noticed, about how really to improve it – by actually permitting the citizen to vote on issues  via referendums. One group is even strongly organizing itself, it seems,  to try to have  representatives within various  ridings, who   believe strongly about its favourite issue – to provide a law limiting abortions. Such a difficult manner to try to establish your point of view. Canada is, indeed,  one of the very few countries that has no law at all on abortions. Would not it be better, however, to  just permit a public vote on that subject. That vote would occur at the same time as the periodic elections. That way, one would truly know the majority view. Is not that what democracy is supposed to be all about?

         It would hardly matter just what powers a leader may have,   if the citizens could vote on the issues they truly find not being properly pursued by their elected reps. That method is followed by many states and countries – but not in any manner at all in Canada. And who is truly even discussing that method of improvement? Any of our columnists? Not recently, anyway, that I have noticed. It is odd, you must admit.  

Many new referendums in the States, some attracting a lot of money?

     Many ballot measures  occurred in USA recently.  But, does spending money on them  buy success?   The Economist magazine in its Nov. 15 edition recounts the results in over a dozen recent campaigns in the States. In Colorado, a campaign to replace that state's flat income tax, with a"tiered" system, to try to raise  a lot of money for education purposes, apparently attracted over $10 million in support, some 300 times that spent by the other side, - but won over only a third of the voters.
     At a  suburb of Seattle, voters approved a $15.00 per hour minimum wage, and a similar vote succeeded in New Jersey. Bans on fracking were passed in 3 cities in Colorado and one in Ohio; but others turned down such proposals. Cincinnati turned down an initiative to replace city workers' defined-benefit pensions. In Colorado, having voted in favour of legalizing marijuana two years ago, the voters voted to tax sales of it. Similar marijuana favoured laws were passed in Maine and three cities in Michigan; and though  7 casinos were approved in New York State, two such proposals flopped in Massachusetts; while those in favour of weak beer cheered a result in Utah, where voters approved the sale of drinks there containing no more than 3.2% of alcohol.
     Such a lot of citizen-voting on issues in the U.S. states. And in our provinces? Do we citizens  have any real  say in anything?
   

   

Should "genetically modified" be on food labels, where it occurs?

      Genetically modified foods; should that feature be delineated upon labels, where such occurs? That question was defeated in a recent referendum in California; but it is being tested again now in Washington State. There, a rather heated "battle is being waged, with the Economist magazine of Nov. 8, stating that it is the second most expensive campaign in state history. The median contribution to the "yes" side is just $25,  but its ads are just as slick as the other side, the magazine says.
     The suggestion is that if such referendum is passed in Washington, other states will want to adopt similar laws - which would cause the federal government to become involved, to overcome the patchwork of rules which otherwise would occur. There certainly are different views about this question - but one will just have to wait  to see what democratic decision prevails; - a proper way to determine appropriate directions, it seems, to this writer.

Direct Democracy - in Poland, and in Texas

         Direct democracy in Poland? Yes, even there, now!

         Just recently campaigners submitted 232,000 signatures to the electoral commission for verification,  almost double the number necessary, to require a vote upon whether to recall Warsaw’s mayor. This was according to a recent  Economist Magazine story about Poland’s governance.

         Now would not that be the sort of thing to overcome the mayoral debacle going on in Toronto? Am not personally anxious to include the right of recall within a Direct Democracy law – but one can see that it can be useful; (even in California they have it – when it recalled their governor Brown and then replaced him with that movie star – Swartzeneger.).

         But in Poland? And we cannot even vote for any issue here in Ontario, much less recalling a punchy mayor.

         And as to full-time kindergarten, another big issue in Ontario,  well, in San Antonio, Texas they had that issue there recently, according to  the Economist.  And so an idea to pay for such through a sales-tax for pre- K plan was put to a city-wide vote. It passed. It illustrated pretty well just what the citizens there thought was wise – to get kids into school while they are – young – but that the citizens must provide taxes to pay for it!    Instead, here in Ontario we are just going millions more in debt to pay for something  we had no say in at all.

         Even with a city in Texas, they have “direct democracy”.

         When will we in Ontario, permit our citizens to actually have a say in the things  in  which we want to have a real influence?