I think Swiss politics are gonna have to eventually sort of get on the same page as that of the EU... Norway will follow the same path.

In a way it's sad because like you say, Switzerland has a very mature, stable, exemplary political culture!

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm asking this cos I really don't know enough about it: what is the Swiss foreign policy (except for being neutral)?

Neutrality allows trust throughout the world and relates not only to wars. this trust allows the Swiss to 'represent' the interests of countries who are not trusted to have ambassadorial presence in other countries, so it fosters relations despite some tensions between other countries. Of course no country is ever strictly absolutely neutral for the reasons you state.

I still believe all countries have a right and almost an obligation to maintain standing armies. You know how fickle history is and situations change and friends can become enemies so do as the boyscouts: be prepared.

I hope Switzerland and Norway don't get on the same page as the EU! Look what the EC and European banks have done to Lithuania, Latvia, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. Third world IMF adjustment policies (read austerity for the masses) and opening of financial markets and control to banks. Funny, it must be more than 20 years ago I read Noam Chomsky speak of the eventual third worldisation of the west, aprediction I see coming true in Europe, the US and Canada.

In the US the federal government can give aid to poorer states but the EC cannot do the same. It's up to the ECB to allow lending as well as by the banks who get their money from the ECB at low interest and then lend at higher rates to countries. These countries have no fiscal freedom because of the Euro and they cannot devalue their currencies to make their economies more competitive. I'm no fan of the Brits, their politicians or their banks but they kept their currency sovereignty I think for a good reason as did Denmark and Sweden.

But the wide opening of the income gap is just the effect of economic globalisation without political integration. That's one reason why we need much more political integration in the world! Another important reason for more integration is to avoid wars in the future, because the weapons technology will always become more and more dangerous.

And the first step before we can create a World State one day (which is unfortunately not very realistic at the moment) is to politically unify the continents (EU, AU, Mercosur, NAFTA, ASEAN etc).

In my eyes for Europe Switzerland should be the model for the political integration, because it can only work in a very federalist way. Only the competences, which really have to be decided on the European level should be decided there. All other competences should still be decided at the member state level. This would not be a European central state and even less integrated than the USA today, because of many different cultures and languages, which should of course survive the integration process. With a stronger European Parlament and a European public the decision process could be much more democratic and transparent than in the EU today.

Churchill already claimed the creation of the United States of Europe in his famous speech in Zürich in 1946. So, why are so many Brits nowadays so eurosceptical?

Slightly off topic but Costa Rica comes to mind as a country which constitutionally abolished its army in 1949. 

Some years ago many swiss politicians wanted Switzerland to join the EU. Now it is a subject they prefer avoiding talking about. If you look at the economics in the EU right now, it does not show so many healthy signs. Personally I am for Switzerland out of the EU and also for it to keep its army. It may not be useful now but one never knows as Marxist said. 

@ Simon with all due respect, I think that the idea about a world state is really a nice one but practically I do not see it working - in the same way I don't see the EU surviving forever. Maybe i am just a pessimist but I think it gets very tough to integrate too many different cultures, the fact that humans always try to pull the blanket their way. In the end I am not sure it would be beneficial for all, (corruption, etc.). Do you know the saying: Small children, small problems? Well I think the same applies to countries

I'm in line with you on the subject though don't think it so much a matter of cultures unless you consider it in the broader sense of political culture etc. No doubt different cultures/etnicities/religious affiliations have been used by some to 'divide and conquer', but one has to admit that there are successful multicultural countries. Switzerland has people from all over.

But I think the bigger issue raised by Simon (and I haven't had a chance yet to put my thoughts together) is the idea of more integration (left a bit vague imo) and a world government which in my opinion would be a nightmare from a number of perspectives. I too see nothing wrong with small countries that can forge agreements and strategic alliances with other small countries. Biggerr is not always better.

Not off topic at all! If I had it my way there would be no armies at all but given realities I still think states have the right to maintain an army (I know you haven't argued against that point). And given events throughout the world it is often those who don't have 'big stick' who end up victims (witness non-nuclear Iraq vs. nuclear Korea - though other interests are at play, granted).

i remember Costa Rica from my days in the 80s when I was becoming more interested in American foreign poliicy in Central and southern America and remember the efforts of Oscar Arias to broker agreements between other conflicting countries in the region. So it is possible to abolish the army and serve as a broker even while Switzerland keeps an army and 'represents' other countries' interests at the ambassadorial level where no embassy exists. Both models are functional.

Hi Marxists

You are right for Switzerland, many different people living together and I also wonder why it holds, maybe because of the money. However, often you can see the cleavage between the latin and the german areas when it comes to votes. Belgium on the other hand is the typical example where it does not work or let's take the African countries that were also split with no respect for their different tribes -  there you also see that it creates too many conflicts/killings, etc. I agree with you to some degree when it comes to political manipulations but I would also tend to think that integrating too many different cultures in one country only lead to chaos and this is due to human nature.

To come back to Switzerland, I see the biggest threat for its economy the day banking secrecy will no longer be.

p.s. sorry for the wrong spelling of your name Marksist

well I don't think we will ever have an answer of whether mixing of cultures/ethnicities will work but it is a fact of life and so we must try to make it work through multiple means and forums - church, home, work, politica, unions, community groupsl etc. Otherwise we leave ourselves open to conflict.

One could advocate assimilation but then assimilation to what? I often read at the cbc.ca criticisms by posters of immigrants saying they have to adopt our culture and values. To which I reply asking which values, citing some atrocious behaviours present and past of Canadians as perhaps some examples of those values. I s there an homogenous Canadian or Swiss culture and set of values?

Belgium in fact does work, though historically the French speakers did dominate up until about WWII, economically (and to a small degree linguistically). And there are difficulties in Brussels about language services but no civil war has broken out! A lot is political blah blah and media nonsense or at least exageration. This is not to deny that some tension exists but not between everyone and I'm confident slowly but surely they'll work it out just as Quebecers do and will with the rest of Canada, whether it means staying together or separating - I'm happy either way.

Agree on Africa - Europe's conscious post-colonial gift to keep their influence without necessarily having to have an administrative presence. Let the natives rule themselves so long as they keep alllowing us the economic/financial gains (theft) we really want. We didn't really go there to rule them, civilise them or carry out the white man's burden - we went to plunder. The same for the Indian sub-continent.

Will Switzerland ever give up it's banking secrecy? Many an interest, national and foreign wouldn't like that!

@ Sarah and Maksist: Maybe "World State" was the wrong vokabulary. I agree with both of you that a super powerful World government would not be useful and maybe even dangerous.

But on the other hand the actual situation in international policy does not satisfy me either. It is known that the earth and mankind could be totally destroyed when the existing ABC-weapons would be used. We have lived in this situation already for around 50 years so far. Fortunately the atomic weapons were not used after the end of the second world war any more, but this does not mean that it will be the same in the future. More and more countries want to get atomic weapons, because they  don't want to become victims (as marksist said). But this leads to a more and more unclear and dangerous situation and we just have to trust more and more governments that they don't use these weapons. That's why in my opinion we should really have a worldwide domestic policy in the military questions. It would be a first step if the UN gets reformed and strengthened.