The EU thread

[Jacob]

I didn't know Switzerland had arms manufacturers. I though they all died out when the pike became obsolete.

The Swiss arms industry is actually pretty big, as I understand it. It's a classic neutral country thing to do - sell weapons to the non-neutral countries. It might be a little less effective if you insist your buyers can't use the weapons they get from you the way they like, I reckon.

[HVC]

Looks like that industry won't be big for long.

[Sheilbh]

The Swiss arms industry is actually pretty big, as I understand it. It's a classic neutral country thing to do - sell weapons to the non-neutral countries. It might be a little less effective if you insist your buyers can't use the weapons they get from you the way they like, I reckon.

That does feel like a pretty big issue for an arms manufacturer.

I suppose they could just focus on very repressive regimes or states unlikely to get involved in wars with states who also like Swiss banking. Saudi feels like a safe bet because I doubt they'd care about shelling Yemen, say.

[Josquius]

Yeah, the Swiss arms makers have already been hurt by their decisions over Ukraine. Interesting to see it's official.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/swiss-weapons-exports-plunge-neutral-stance-hurts-trade-2024-03-05/#:~:text=Despite%20its%20long%2Dheld%20neutrality,Stockholm%20International%20Peace%20Research%20Institute.

[Jacob]

Yeah, the Swiss arms makers have already been hurt by their decisions over Ukraine. Interesting to see it's official.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/swiss-weapons-exports-plunge-neutral-stance-hurts-trade-2024-03-05/#:~:text=Despite%20its%20long%2Dheld%20neutrality,Stockholm%20International%20Peace%20Research%20Institute.

According to that article Denmark was the second biggest buyer of Swiss arms in 2023 (after Germany). That makes the report that Denmark is considering excluding the Swiss from future procurement more weighty I think.

[Admiral Yi]

Okay, I'll try again

My general view about constitutions is that everyone should be looking to comply. If it is too political it makes the operation of normal politics difficult because everything is constitutional and if it is too prescriptive it makes all procedure constitutional.

I think debt rules fall into the category of both. Tax and spending power is normally the base of democratic politics. And crises are regular (just not predictable) that may require extra spending or tax cuts for various reasons. Or it could simply be shifts in in-year accounting in the Finance Department or short-term shifts require a change because they have constitutional impacts?

On the one hand you could, in effect, ignore it. Or get around it through accounting tricks where the debate around policy decisions moves from being about the thing itself, to whether you can do it off-book or not. Or use the emergency exceptions. If you are regularly having to declare states of emergency to do normal politics of responding to crises, that is a problem.

But I think all of those have a problem because the constitution is no longer a document that you are trying to comply but one that you are regularly working to get around. I think that's not a good thing - and I think precedent matters. You'd be able to say "the other side did it" because non-compliance/working around the constitution gets baked into politics.

These are all valid arguments.  But all these advantages of flexible borrowing will be lost if your country defaults.  I suppose the counter to that is what's the point of working to save the ability to borrow for future generations if no one, including those future generations, ever gets to use it.

And I suppose I don't consider "well, who cares if we default" to be a very rationale response to the issues I've raised.

As to the historical stuff: OK?  They should rewrite it?

[Valmy]

It seems weird to sell weapons if you think them being used in a war will violate your neutrality. That seems like a good scenario compared to other uses your weapons could be put to.

[HVC]

Besides, they're  doing neutrality wrong. You're supposed to be neutral so that you can take money from both sides. So let Russian oligarchs keep using your banks to store I'll gotten gains, while still suppling the Ukrainians with arms. They're disappointing their Swiss forebearers.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Besides, they're  doing neutrality wrong. You're supposed to be neutral so that you can take money from both sides. So let Russian oligarchs keep using your banks to store I'll gotten gains, while still suppling the Ukrainians with arms. They're disappointing their Swiss forebearers.

And have mercenaries fight on the various battlefields