Languish.org

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26108597

QuoteSwiss immigration: 50.3% back quotas, final results show

Swiss voters have narrowly backed a referendum proposal to bring back strict quotas for immigration from European Union countries.

Final results showed 50.3% voted in favour. The vote invalidates the Swiss-EU agreement on freedom of movement.

Fiercely independent Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but has adopted large sections of EU policy.

Brussels said it regretted the outcome of the vote and would examine its implications.

A Yes vote of more than 50% was needed for the referendum to pass.

The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says the vote has shown up traditional divisions, with French-speaking areas against the quotas, German-speaking regions divided, and the Italian-speaking canton of Ticino firmly in favour.

A Yes vote means Swiss ministers will have some tricky explaining to do in Brussels, our correspondent says.

'Huge mistake'
In a statement, the European Commission said it regretted that an "initiative for the introduction of quantitative limits to immigration has been passed by this vote.

"This goes against the principle of free movement of persons between the EU and Switzerland. The EU will examine the implications of this initiative on EU-Swiss relations as a whole. In this context, the Federal Council's position on the result will also be taken into account."

The vote comes amid increasing debate across Europe about migration and the impact of free movement of people.

Switzerland's economy is booming at the moment, and unemployment is low, but many Swiss worry about immigration.

A quarter of the eight million-strong population is foreign, and last year 80,000 new immigrants arrived.

Since 2007, most of the EU's 500 million residents have been on an equal footing with locals in the Swiss job market - the result of a policy voted into law in a 2000 referendum.

But a coalition led by the right-wing Swiss People's Party now wants to reverse this deal, saying it was a huge mistake.

Supporters of quotas believe free movement has put pressure on housing, health, education, and transport. They also argue that foreign workers drive salaries down.

But the Swiss government and business leaders say free movement is key to Switzerland's economic success, allowing employers to choose skilled staff from across Europe.

Switzerland's bilateral agreements with the EU took years of negotiation to achieve.

Our correspondent says that abandoning free movement could limit Switzerland's access to Europe's single market, where over half its exports are sold.

QuoteAnalysis

This is the result the Swiss government and business leaders most feared: support for immigration quotas, by the tiniest of margins. In Switzerland the voters' word is final, and the government will now have to inform the European Union that it wants to "renegotiate" its bilateral agreement on free movement of people. But renegotiation is almost certainly not an option.

The Swiss have already had years to phase in the deal, and Brussels views free movement as integral to participation in Europe's single market. Exclusion from that market could spell disaster for Switzerland's booming economy: over half of all Swiss exports are sold in the EU. What is more, Swiss employers increasingly rely on highly qualified staff from across Europe - they believe they will lose their competitive edge if they are no longer free to employ who they like.

But the right-wing Swiss People's Party is jubilant that its claims of overcrowding, and pressure on Swiss jobs, salaries and housing, found favour with voters. The big question now is, how will Brussels, already under pressure from full EU members like Britain over the impact of free movement, react?

From what I read only one French canton voted 'yes' and only one German canton voted 'no', which is weird.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flashq.de%2Fpix%2Fsvp-001.jpg&hash=e1e50e648e3731ebd0545e262ee82b2659c76950)
Translation: "Quit it, Blackey."

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreakytrigger.co.uk%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F10%2Fswiss-poster.JPG&hash=b9fb73b5c6dbd1affcee7d95c9020221973f84ff)
Translation: "That's what you get for being Bosnian."

At least it was crows and not rats.

Impressive honkers.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 09, 2014, 03:14:55 PM
From what I read only one French canton voted 'yes' and only one German canton voted 'no', which is weird.

It makes sense if you think about it from a Swiss perspective...The practical effects of a yes vote are likely to be reducing opportunities outside the country but protecting opportunities for the Swiss. The German speaking area of Switzerland has one of the best situations for employees on the continent. Losing the chance to work in Germany or Austria may be acceptable to improve the chance to work in Zurich. In the French speaking areas, while I know they have Geneva, Paris is very attractive.

Poor fucking Eurobabies don't get to freely move to and work in other countries.  My eyes are so full of tears that I can't fill out my application for a Canadian visa.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2014, 04:58:26 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 09, 2014, 03:14:55 PM
From what I read only one French canton voted 'yes' and only one German canton voted 'no', which is weird.

It makes sense if you think about it from a Swiss perspective...The practical effects of a yes vote are likely to be reducing opportunities outside the country but protecting opportunities for the Swiss. The German speaking area of Switzerland has one of the best situations for employees on the continent. Losing the chance to work in Germany or Austria may be acceptable to improve the chance to work in Zurich. In the French speaking areas, while I know they have Geneva, Paris is very attractive.

I knew this could be spun into somehow showing French inferiority somehow. <_< :P

The EU should not have accepted the Swiss cherry-picking in the first place and I hope they have enough backbone to actually cancel all the treaties as stipulated in them once Switzerland enacts a new law which limits freedom of movement. We shouldn't grant them full access to our markets if they don't in turn grant our citizens full access to their job market. And if they want to compromise, they better bring their banking secret or something else that is worthwhile to the table.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 09, 2014, 05:17:28 PM
Poor fucking Eurobabies don't get to freely move to and work in other countries.  My eyes are so full of tears that I can't fill out my application for a Canadian visa.

Want a hug?

Quote from: Zanza on February 09, 2014, 05:25:50 PM
The EU should not have accepted the Swiss cherry-picking in the first place and I hope they have enough backbone to actually cancel all the treaties as stipulated in them once Switzerland enacts a new law which limits freedom of movement. We shouldn't grant them full access to our markets if they don't in turn grant our citizens full access to their job market. And if they want to compromise, they better bring their banking secret or something else that is worthwhile to the table.

If access to markets obligates a country to permit its trading partners' citizens to freely seek work in a country, why aren't Americans allowed free access to German job markets?  Serious question: we have practically zero customs barriers between us, but immigration barriers are high.  Is that okay?  Or is only okay when it's you doing it to another country?

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 09, 2014, 05:28:45 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 09, 2014, 05:17:28 PM
Poor fucking Eurobabies don't get to freely move to and work in other countries.  My eyes are so full of tears that I can't fill out my application for a Canadian visa.

Want a hug?

Not really.  Canada is cold.  I just want to highlight, again, the Euroweenie and Canuckiweenie hypocrisy when it comes to immigration policy.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 09, 2014, 05:32:07 PM

If access to markets obligates a country to permit its trading partners' citizens to freely seek work in a country, why aren't Americans allowed free access to German job markets?  Serious question: we have practically zero customs barriers between us, but immigration barriers are high.  Is that okay?  Or is only okay when it's you doing it to another country?

It is okay, or at least not a German problem. You know all the freedom of movement they have in Europe? It wasn't based on Germany unilaterally deciding to drop restrictions. It was based on bilateral agreements (hence the issue in this referendum where Switzerland is backing off their end of the deal).

The US is not going to allow unchecked freedom of movement between the US and EU. We have more migration controls than basically any other non repressive regime in the world. We actually won't even let some EU nationals travel here for holiday without a visa.

I don't want to hijack this thread, because I think this is an interesting topic, but at the risk of doing so....

We fingerprint foreigners coming and going from this country. Apparently Americans returning can't be fingerprinted because that violates their privacy.

However, in less stable countries we have apparently paid for them to have and implement the same fingerprinting technology we use in migration. Americans are not exempt from this fingerprinting. I really resent this. If we won't do it at home, why can we sponsor others to do it abroad? Especially since the US government must have access to the data (or else why would they pay for the technology).

FWIW, I am a little embarrassed that we fingerprint all the foreigners coming in and out as well.

I think it's great.  Other than the expense, I wouldn't mind if they did it at state borders.

Although ideally the US, EU, Japan, and Canada with maybe some other non-shitty countries here and there would be fully open to each other economically, albeit with checkpoints, my point was that a sovereign state can do whatever it likes with its immigration policy and this is not a good reason to advocate locking them out of general markets.

I never cared too much about the US government fingerprinting me when I came to the country. Guess I'm accostumed to opression. Or I just don't give a shit.

Always made me believe I would be in those magical databases they use in CSI and other police shows :)

Quote from: celedhring on February 09, 2014, 06:27:40 PM

Always made me believe I would be in those magical databases they use in CSI and other police shows :)

You probably are. If one day your town is being hit with drone strikes, it is probably because your fingerprint is similar to some Al Qaeda wannabe's. I suggest you be especially vigilant on your wedding day.

Foriegners should be anal probed.

Quote from: Zanza on February 09, 2014, 05:25:50 PM
The EU should not have accepted the Swiss cherry-picking in the first place and I hope they have enough backbone to actually cancel all the treaties as stipulated in them once Switzerland enacts a new law which limits freedom of movement. We shouldn't grant them full access to our markets if they don't in turn grant our citizens full access to their job market. And if they want to compromise, they better bring their banking secret or something else that is worthwhile to the table.

You guys should just besiege the fuckers.  Nobody goes in or out.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2014, 05:48:49 PM
We have more migration controls than basically any other non repressive regime in the world.

Balderdash.  Something like 50% of the world's immigration comes to the US.  We grant something like 90% of new citizenships in the world.

Why swiss people don't speak swiss?

Any basis for those stats Yi?

This will help UKIP a lot.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 09, 2014, 08:00:18 PM
Any basis for those stats Yi?

Probably either the Economist or the NYT.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2014, 07:54:30 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2014, 05:48:49 PM
We have more migration controls than basically any other non repressive regime in the world.

Balderdash.  Something like 50% of the world's immigration comes to the US.  We grant something like 90% of new citizenships in the world.

I was talking about border controls, not immigration. The process of visiting the US is difficult and expensive for the citizens of countries that aren't western europe, canada, etc. A US passport is generally less desirable than say a German one because so many countries hit the US with reciprocity sanctions.

That said, upon reflection I think Japan is worse than we are.

Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2014, 07:58:52 PM
Why swiss people don't speak swiss?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20120303012702%2Fvictorious%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F0%2F03%2FWhat_Is_This_I_Don%26%23039%3Bt_Even_2.jpg%2F372px-What_Is_This_I_Don%26%23039%3Bt_Even_2.jpg&hash=17e836d42c1df20007998196d04ed27e1701502c)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2014, 08:01:45 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 09, 2014, 08:00:18 PM
Any basis for those stats Yi?

Probably either the Economist or the NYT.

They both sound like nonsense.

I'm sorry they didn't please you.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2014, 08:45:58 PM
I'm sorry they didn't please you.

You need to spice up your numbers with a PowerPoint.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2014, 08:45:58 PM
I'm sorry they didn't please you.

:console: I'll be okay.

Looking it up the US doesn't even have half the OECD's immigration (though it's about 40%) and average naturalisations in the US are at 680 000 pa, in the UK they're 170 000 pa.

The big cities in Siwtzerland - Basel, Geneva, Zürich - where most immigration occurs voted against the measures. It's mostly the rural areas, which are less affected by it, that voted in favor of it.

Quote from: Syt on February 09, 2014, 10:01:10 PM
The big cities in Siwtzerland - Basel, Geneva, Zürich - where most immigration occurs voted against the measures. It's mostly the rural areas, which are less affected by it, that voted against it.

So, everybody voted against?

Yi was too trusting of the liberal media. :(

Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2014, 10:10:32 PM

Quote from: Syt on February 09, 2014, 10:01:10 PM
The big cities in Siwtzerland - Basel, Geneva, Zürich - where most immigration occurs voted against the measures. It's mostly the rural areas, which are less affected by it, that voted against it.

So, everybody voted against?

Corrected. -_-

Switzerland- :bleeding:

User comments on Austrian news sites: "Switzerland is the only true democracy in Europe!" and "Finally an electorate that doesn't fall for the EU/Corporate/left wing propaganda that unregulated immigration is a good thing."

"Switzerland - getting away with being the biggest dick in Europe since World War II."

Government, businesses and unions are all unhappy with the result. A politician tried to smooth things over, stating, that the vote was only about instating limits, but that it didn't specify how high those limits would be and that there's a three year time window for negotiations with the EU and implementing the limits.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 09, 2014, 07:03:22 PM
Foriegners should be anal probed.

Enough with the sex tourism.

That guillotine clause is gonna come in handy now.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 09, 2014, 05:32:07 PM
If access to markets obligates a country to permit its trading partners' citizens to freely seek work in a country, why aren't Americans allowed free access to German job markets?  Serious question: we have practically zero customs barriers between us, but immigration barriers are high.  Is that okay?  Or is only okay when it's you doing it to another country?

The custom tariffs are really the least of concerns. That's just a small percentage of the total cost. It's the bureaucracy around customs and VAT as well as regulations that create trade barriers. If Swiss companies all of a sudden have to provide all the necessary documentation for customs again and if European customers can't as easily claim VAT back, that makes Swiss companies less competitive. If a Swiss certificate is no longer acknowledged by EU authorities, Swiss producers always need to get one domestic and one EU certificate for everything they make, etc.

I think we should not grant Switzerland the right to cherry-pick some advantages without at the same time Switzerland giving something in return. Access to their market is insignificant for goods and services, but it matters for jobs. The same is true vice versa for Swiss - they rarely need to go abroad to find a good job, but having the EU as their domestic market helps them.

Your question regarding high immigration barriers is easy to answer for me: I would be totally fine with having freedom of movement with the USA, but I don't think that the EU is really the party that doesn't want that. It's always about reciprocity.

I recall at my German construction company, working a site in Switzerland was a major pain in the ass, because you had to declare everything. Each car with all its tool cases and so on had to be accounted for in writing, down to the last screwdriver.

Quote from: Syt on February 09, 2014, 11:13:13 PM
User comments on Austrian news sites: "Switzerland is the only true democracy in Europe!" and "Finally an electorate that doesn't fall for the EU/Corporate/left wing propaganda that unregulated immigration is a good thing."

*facepalm*
Aren't most of the immigrants in Switzerland, in particular the ones the righties like to bitch about, from outside the EU?

Quote from: Tyr on February 10, 2014, 05:03:32 AM
*facepalm*
Aren't most of the immigrants in Switzerland, in particular the ones the righties like to bitch about, from outside the EU?

No, the two biggest groups of immigrants in Switzerland are Italians and Germans, followed by Portugese and French. About 2/3 of all immigrants are EU citizens.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bfs.admin.ch%2Fbfs%2Fportal%2Fde%2Findex%2Fthemen%2F01%2F07%2Fblank%2Fkey%2F01%2F01.parsys.0002.Image.gif&hash=75ac1aee763f7e4ba4261e60b84a248f7435d8c0)

read somewhere that when the agreement was signed the guesstimate was about 8000 migrants a year. Instead they got 80.000 a year.
Anyway, it's their country, they get to decide who get in and in what quantities.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 10, 2014, 05:43:27 AM
read somewhere that when the agreement was signed the guesstimate was about 8000 migrants a year. Instead they got 80.000 a year.
Anyway, it's their country, they get to decide who get in and in what quantities.

They are of course free to cancel the bilateral agreements with the EU. But as long as these are in place, they don't get to decide who gets in and in what quantities. Pacta sunt servanda.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 09, 2014, 03:14:55 PM
From what I read only one French canton voted 'yes' and only one German canton voted 'no', which is weird.

Not at all, this is a consistent pattern, the Romand cantons have been more pro-european or simply more open to the world for quite a while cf. the failed 1992 referendum on the EEA.

Quote from: Zanza on February 10, 2014, 05:11:23 AM

Quote from: Tyr on February 10, 2014, 05:03:32 AM
*facepalm*
Aren't most of the immigrants in Switzerland, in particular the ones the righties like to bitch about, from outside the EU?

No, the two biggest groups of immigrants in Switzerland are Italians and Germans, followed by Portugese and French. About 2/3 of all immigrants are EU citizens.

(http://www.bfs.adf)

How odd.
How many of those are recent immigrants? I've heard most Italian Swiss have family in Italy.

Votes per canton and amount of foreigners in them:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgEWzAoCYAAEXbo.jpg)

I think the EU should maybe wait until their own election results before they decide to start throwing their weight around.

Why?

The Swiss have voted to scrap current treaties with the EU in the next 3 years. That's not going to change after the Euro elections.

The new article in the Swiss constitution doesn't actually contain any specifics about how many immigrants they can still admit or what exactly preference for Swiss means. So it will be interesting to see how the Swiss parliament, which was against the constitutional amendment, will actually pass as laws to fill it with life.

Yeah, they could choose to let in an infinite amount of immigrants from the EU per year. That would be hilarious. Direct democracy trolling.

Quote from: Zanza on February 10, 2014, 03:56:02 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 09, 2014, 05:32:07 PM
If access to markets obligates a country to permit its trading partners' citizens to freely seek work in a country, why aren't Americans allowed free access to German job markets?  Serious question: we have practically zero customs barriers between us, but immigration barriers are high.  Is that okay?  Or is only okay when it's you doing it to another country?

The custom tariffs are really the least of concerns. That's just a small percentage of the total cost. It's the bureaucracy around customs and VAT as well as regulations that create trade barriers. If Swiss companies all of a sudden have to provide all the necessary documentation for customs again and if European customers can't as easily claim VAT back, that makes Swiss companies less competitive. If a Swiss certificate is no longer acknowledged by EU authorities, Swiss producers always need to get one domestic and one EU certificate for everything they make, etc.

I think we should not grant Switzerland the right to cherry-pick some advantages without at the same time Switzerland giving something in return. Access to their market is insignificant for goods and services, but it matters for jobs. The same is true vice versa for Swiss - they rarely need to go abroad to find a good job, but having the EU as their domestic market helps them.

Your question regarding high immigration barriers is easy to answer for me: I would be totally fine with having freedom of movement with the USA, but I don't think that the EU is really the party that doesn't want that. It's always about reciprocity.

You have swayed me, and I realize to some degree my earlier objections do not adhere to my principles, one of which is that economic warfare should be waged mercilessly against any state trying to maintain a privilege, whether that be super-jobs of Switzerland, or the slave labor of the People's Republic, until such time as we are all equally poor.

No one benefits from excluding Switzerland from the common market, not the Swiss, not the rest of Europeans.

However, I think it would hurt the EU long-term even more if we started to compromise on the four basic freedoms, one of which is at stake here.

From the Guardian:

QuoteSwitzerland faces 'difficult talks' with EU after immigration referendum
Surprise vote in favour of quotas for migrants from EU delights far-right but threatens open access to Europe's single market
Ian Traynor in Brussels
theguardian.com, Monday 10 February 2014 19.19 GMT

Switzerland's key neighbours have warned that the country's close relationship with the European Union hinged on how it coped with the decision to scrap free movement for EU citizens.

Berlin and Paris voiced dismay over Sunday's Swiss referendum, which decided by a thin majority to introduce quotas for migrants from the EU, scrapping a longstanding agreement with Brussels guaranteeing freedom of movement.

The verdict shocked the European and Swiss elites as it overturned the key pact governing links between the EU and Switzerland, meaning a package of accords partly integrating the country in the EU without being a member could unravel.

A spokesman for the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said the vote's surprise outcome created "substantial problems". France's foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said the EU would need to review its relations with Switzerland because of the vote to curb EU citizens' rights.

As anti-immigration campaigners across Europe took delight in the Swiss backlash against newcomers, it was clear that the government in Berne faces a dilemma. The fallout from the vote affects a range of agreements with Brussels that allow the Swiss open access to Europe's single market on everything from selling cheese to competing for public tenders to civil aviation, transport and research.

The strongest warning to the Swiss came from Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany's foreign minister. "Cherry-picking with the EU is not a sustainable strategy. The Swiss have damaged themselves with this result. The fair co-operation we have had in the past with Switzerland also includes observing the central fundamental decisions taken by the EU," he said.

Freedom of movement is one of the four keystones of the single market. Switzerland's access to the market – the EU takes 60% of Swiss exports – is based on seven bilateral agreements from 1999, including the free movement pact. The package of seven agreements are interlinked, including guillotine clauses, which means that if one agreement is ditched, the whole package collapses.

For Brussels, said a European commission spokeswoman, free movement is a "sacred liberty. The ball is in the Swiss court. They have to decide what consequences to draw."

Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said there would need to be "difficult talks" with the Swiss.

Markus Spillmann, editor of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung in Zurich, said:"The relationship between Switzerland and the EU is now completely open. There will certainly be no good for the economy and for prosperity in this country," he wrote. "Inward-looking Switzerland has won. That's not good for a small, open, resources-poor country."

Sunday's referendum, which passed by 50.3% of votes, was mounted by the populist conservative anti-immigration campaigners of the Swiss People's party. Mainstream politicians, the business community and most urban voters all opposed the immigration caps and were defeated.

The EU and Switzerland are supposed to open negotiations on Wednesday on a new updated framework agreement regulating relations, which have been fraught in recent years because of disputes over banking secrecy and taxation.

The referendum result obliges the Swiss government to cap immigration, but it does not stipulate how and Berne has three years to turn the voters' verdict into law, giving it time to negotiate with Brussels and other EU capitals.

"The referendum did not specify how these measures will be implemented. It only calls for upper bounds on immigration in order to fulfil economic needs," said Reto Föllmi, professor of international economics at the University of St Gallen. "If there is any chance of getting the EU to agree to this, Switzerland must make huge concessions in the other fields of the bilateral negotiations."

But it is difficult to see Brussels diluting freedom of movement to satisfy the Swiss while also allowing Berne preferential access to the single market.

Credit Suisse warned of a negative impact on Swiss growth prospects, foreign investment and job losses, adding that there would be problems finding the right staff for highly qualified jobs.

There are several hundred thousand EU nationals living and working in Switzerland, mainly from Italy, Germany, Portugal and France, while some 450,000 Swiss also live and work in EU countries.

One hundred days before elections to the European parliament, in which immigration will be a central issue, the populist right hailed the Swiss verdict as a template for the rest of the EU.

Geert Wilders, the rightwing Dutch populist, called the Swiss result "fantastic'' and called on the Netherlands to follow suit.

Marine Le Pen, leader of France's National Front, said the same about France. "This Swiss victory will reinforce the will of the French people to stop mass immigration," she said.

In Germany, where Euroscepticism is much weaker, the new anti-single currency party, Alternative for Germany, demanded a referendum on immigration.

And in Austria, Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the far-right Freedom party, which is currently nudging the top of the opinion polls, called for the same.

If mainstream leaders across Europe are alarmed at the implications of the Swiss vote, analysts said, it is also because they know similar results could be expected in several countries across the EU if single-issue plebiscites were held.

That last point is key. We don't know what the Swiss will actually propose. But this seems to exacerbate the problem in Europe which is that it's an elite project. That was fine while everything was working well ('results-legitimacy') but is more difficult now. Distrust of the EU has doubled in the last 5 years and is now at over 60% and (right-wing) Eurosceptics could win up to 20-25% of the seats in the European Parliament. A large driver of that sentiment is immigration, another is a series of not terribly successful policies being imposed by the EU on member states.

Given that this is the first time the Parliament's ability to elect Commission President will take effect I think it's probably best if the EU doesn't take too strident a position now given that they don't know their own situation beyond 2014 and they don't know what the Swiss will propose.

Also I think it'll strengthen Euroscepticism if the EU leans in too strongly.

Also from Ian Traynor:

QuoteAnalysis
Fallout will be closely watched by advocates of new deal for UK

Swiss voters have asked a big question of their country's place in Europe. They want fewer Europeans coming to live and work in their country. But the timing and the verdict of Sunday's plebiscite mean that for once Switzerland's direct democracy will echo well beyond its Alpine peaks and valleys.

It will be heard particularly clearly in Britain where David Cameron has been proposing very similar measures to those supported by the Swiss – a cap on migration within the European Union and a dilution of one of the EU's basic liberties, the free movement of labour.

Nowhere will the ensuing wrangle between Brussels and Berne be followed more closely than in London, because of the implications for Cameron's EU referendum and new-deal-for-the-UK campaign.

On the EU side, in trying to resolve the Swiss conundrum an uppermost consideration will be to avoid any concessions on freedom of movement that would encourage British chutzpah in seeking to bend the EU to its will.

No cherrypicking, can't have your cake and eat it, got to take the rough with the smooth. Such were the mantras from Brussels and Berlin on Monday following the Swiss shock. The message might as well be directed at Britain's Conservatives as at the Swiss.

The two cases are very different. Britain is a (relatively) big country in Europe. Switzerland is small, if highly successful and wealthy. Switzerland is not in the EU. Britain is. But the same freedom of movement rules apply to both. Berne will now need to renegotiate the terms of its integration with the EU, just as Cameron insists he wants to renegotiate the terms of Britain's EU membership in order to put a winnable proposition to a Swiss-style plebiscite in 2017 if he is re-elected next year.

Freedom of movement goes to the heart of the single market, the bit that Britain likes most about the EU. It is founded on four freedoms – of goods, services, capital, and labour. Britain has always been the single market's foremost champion, Margaret Thatcher to the fore. It remains so. But it wants to dilute one of its central premises.

There is little evidence to suggest EU migration to Britain over the past decade has done anything but mildly boost economic performance and help the fiscal balance. Swiss economic analysis on Monday reached the same conclusion about the impact of the vote – that it would depress growth, hurt outside investment, damage exports.

The main message from Brussels to the Swiss was that reversing freedom of movement inevitably entails rewriting the entire complex gamut of the confederation's legal relationship with the EU, not to Switzerland's advantage.

The precedent is not a happy one for a Conservative party committed to free trade and the single market. But the popular Swiss verdict also feeds into the European zeitgeist, of hostility to foreigners, of scapegoating, of fears of jobs being lost to outsiders (in a country with the lowest jobless rate in Europe), of social services being abused by non-natives.

The Swiss experience, over the next couple of years, may turn out to be salutary and chastening for a Britain and a Cameron government mulling its European options.

Ian Traynor, Europe editor

Appeasement of right-wing nationalists? How very British of you.

The Swiss national football team:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1613079%2Fthumbs%2Fo-SUIZA-ENTERA-570.jpg%3F7&hash=2662305974a4910fe9163ccd71fb77d19911343d)

The Swiss national football team without inmigrants:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fextra3.blog.ndr.de%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F02%2FSchweizer-Nationalmannschaft-nach-Volksentscheid-1067.jpg&hash=b19a298ab8fab04f79126a4764b5c2566395cb90)

Proves them right then, immigrants are taking their jobs!  :mad:

Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 05:43:46 AM
Proves them right then, immigrants are taking their jobs!  :mad:

^_^

Comment on Facebook from my German ex-boss's son:

"Not because of fear but because of bravery the Swiss pull the brake on immigration - against all EU resistance. And with good reason!"

And he adds this picture:
(https://scontent-a-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1618535_682023868510385_683605405_n.jpg)

"My mother is the language
My father is the land
For the future of my family I resist!"

:bleeding:

And this in a country with 4 different language/cultural groups  :rolleyes:

Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 07:53:38 AM
And this in a country with 4 different language/cultural groups  :rolleyes:

So you understand their point?

Quote from: Zanza on February 10, 2014, 04:23:41 PM
No one benefits from excluding Switzerland from the common market, not the Swiss, not the rest of Europeans.

However, I think it would hurt the EU long-term even more if we started to compromise on the four basic freedoms, one of which is at stake here.

How does this impact the four basic freedoms? The Swiss aren't a part of the EU.

You guys have the risk of the UK dropping out right now. Hammering Switzerland because of theoretical restrictions that probably will be quite mild will probably play into a UK exit vote.

Quote from: Grey Fox on February 11, 2014, 08:01:58 AM

Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 07:53:38 AM
And this in a country with 4 different language/cultural groups  :rolleyes:

So you understand their point?

No, I don't. In the bit where he appeals for the "language", my first question was: which one?

I'm a bit worried with all these xenophobe outbursts throughout Europe. One thinks that they will go away once the recession finally recedes, since people are mostly blaming their problems on "the outsider". But then again, Switzerland has done well during it.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 08:07:07 AM

Quote from: Zanza on February 10, 2014, 04:23:41 PM
No one benefits from excluding Switzerland from the common market, not the Swiss, not the rest of Europeans.

However, I think it would hurt the EU long-term even more if we started to compromise on the four basic freedoms, one of which is at stake here.

How does this impact the four basic freedoms? The Swiss aren't a part of the EU.

You guys have the risk of the UK dropping out right now. Hammering Switzerland because of theoretical restrictions that probably will be quite mild will probably play into a UK exit vote.

I don't think the UK would never leave the EU, if leaving the EU meant the loss of all 4 freedoms (as in, losing the free market area). Keeping it "all or nothing" is best for the EU, in my opinion.

Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 08:07:32 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on February 11, 2014, 08:01:58 AM

Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 07:53:38 AM
And this in a country with 4 different language/cultural groups  :rolleyes:

So you understand their point?

No, I don't. In the bit where he appeals for the "language", my first question was: which one?

I'm a bit worried with all these xenophobe outbursts throughout Europe. One thinks that they will go away once the recession finally recedes, since people are mostly blaming their problems on "the outsider". But then again, Switzerland has done well during it.

They already have diversity, in the form of their 4 cultural group.


It's because Arabs & Eastern European immigrants are assholes.

It's hilarious to read that dude in EUOT bitch at Italians stealing jobs in Ticino, an Italian-speaking canton within spitting distance. Especially when unemployment rate is something like 3-4%.

We have something like 5-6 million immigrants from all over the place and about the same number of folks without jobs. The Swiss in our position would be laying down the gas pipes.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 08:07:07 AM

Quote from: Zanza on February 10, 2014, 04:23:41 PM
No one benefits from excluding Switzerland from the common market, not the Swiss, not the rest of Europeans.

However, I think it would hurt the EU long-term even more if we started to compromise on the four basic freedoms, one of which is at stake here.

How does this impact the four basic freedoms? The Swiss aren't a part of the EU.

You guys have the risk of the UK dropping out right now. Hammering Switzerland because of theoretical restrictions that probably will be quite mild will probably play into a UK exit vote.

The UK dropping out would be actually seen as a positive for many people, not just wackos. The UK is not exactly a core member, it has plenty of opt-outs. It might not be as mild for the UK though.

Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2014, 08:13:00 AM
It's hilarious to read that dude in EUOT bitch at Italians stealing jobs in Ticino, an Italian-speaking canton within spitting distance. Especially when unemployment rate is something like 3-4%.

We have something like 5-6 million immigrants from all over the place and about the same number of folks without jobs. The Swiss in our position would be laying down the gas pipes.

Well, the Ticino canto was even in more in favour of the proposal than Alemannic cantons. Is that something new or is it a pattern like the Romand/Alemannic opposition?

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 11, 2014, 08:15:23 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2014, 08:13:00 AM
It's hilarious to read that dude in EUOT bitch at Italians stealing jobs in Ticino, an Italian-speaking canton within spitting distance. Especially when unemployment rate is something like 3-4%.

We have something like 5-6 million immigrants from all over the place and about the same number of folks without jobs. The Swiss in our position would be laying down the gas pipes.

Well, the Ticino canto was even in more in favour of the proposal than Alemannic cantons. Is that something new or is it a pattern like the Romand/Alemannic opposition?

According to friends of mine, Ticino is the Lega Nord's wet dream.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 08:07:07 AM

Quote from: Zanza on February 10, 2014, 04:23:41 PM
No one benefits from excluding Switzerland from the common market, not the Swiss, not the rest of Europeans.

However, I think it would hurt the EU long-term even more if we started to compromise on the four basic freedoms, one of which is at stake here.

How does this impact the four basic freedoms? The Swiss aren't a part of the EU.

You guys have the risk of the UK dropping out right now. Hammering Switzerland because of theoretical restrictions that probably will be quite mild will probably play into a UK exit vote.

Switzerland is party to Schengen, and thus the four freedoms.

As for the UK, the worst thing we can do about that is give concessions to the Swiss. Once you've opened Pandora's Box there's no way to close it again.

Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2014, 08:19:04 AM

Switzerland is party to Schengen, and thus the four freedoms.

As for the UK, the worst thing we can do about that is give concessions to the Swiss. Once you've opened Pandora's Box there's no way to close it again.

The Swiss only agreed to join the Schengen area when there was the risk of them losing other bilateral treaties with the EU and I would guess they are taking more immigrants on a per capita basis than any non microstate country. I can't imagine the restrictions will be so severe if this only passed with 50.3% of the vote.

If the EU wants to take a really hard line, that is only going to play into the perception that it is a borg like entity bent on assimilating the various nationalities of europe into an undifferentiated euro-mass, regardless of what the people want. The approach of holding an economic knife to country's throats to keep them in line is bound to backfire--voters are not necessarily rational actors.

But AR you seem to be arguing then for a paper tiger version of the EU.

Meh. The truth is the guys at Brussels can barely tie their shoelaces together, much less agree to oppress anyone. Eurosceptics are usually nothing more than modern Don Quijotes, tilting at the EU windmills. If one is stupid enough to believe the EU is anything else than a series of treaties between states, nothing will convince him otherwise.

Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2014, 08:42:33 AM
But AR you seem to be arguing then for a paper tiger version of the EU.

Not really. Cutting Switzerland off from the common market could seriously harm the country. Why do that when by the narrowest of margins all Swiss voters have done is said they want some limit, in 3 years? With business and the government aligned in not wanting any limits, it seems that any limit will be very minor.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 08:58:32 AM
Not really. Cutting Switzerland off from the common market could seriously harm the country. Why do that when by the narrowest of margins all Swiss voters have done is said they want some limit, in 3 years? With business and the government aligned in not wanting any limits, it seems that any limit will be very minor.

Because access to the common market was a perk of signing onto Schengen and not a basic right?  Because signatories to treaties are obliged to respect the treaty or lose access to services provided as an effect of that treaty?

Do you usually advocate letting states cherry pick enforcement of treaties based on what they do and don't like?

Why does the harm to the Swiss economy matter to the EU? They chose this path.

We can talk about a new set of treaties if they want, but obviously they are not going to to start in a very good negotiating position, since they are obligated to drop out of the single market if no agreement is reached.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 08:58:32 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2014, 08:42:33 AM
But AR you seem to be arguing then for a paper tiger version of the EU.

Not really. Cutting Switzerland off from the common market could seriously harm the country. Why do that when by the narrowest of margins all Swiss voters have done is said they want some limit, in 3 years? With business and the government aligned in not wanting any limits, it seems that any limit will be very minor.

I don't know that it has to been enacted, but it should certainly be wielded as an omnipresent (and real) threat to convince other concessions from the Swiss in lieu of laxity over this issue.

Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2014, 08:19:04 AM
Switzerland is party to Schengen, and thus the four freedoms.

Schengen and the four freedoms are different things. Ireland + UK are not part of Schengen, but they have the four freedoms.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 08:40:20 AM
The Swiss only agreed to join the Schengen area when there was the risk of them losing other bilateral treaties with the EU

No, what is at stake here is what was called the "Bilateral Treaties I" from 1999, a set of seven treaties between Switzerland and the EU.
Schengen was part of the set called "Bilateral Treaties II" from 2004.

QuoteThe approach of holding an economic knife to country's throats to keep them in line is bound to backfire--voters are not necessarily rational actors.

It was already a mistake to conclude the original Bilateral Treaties and the EU commission said as much when the question came up to adapt them to recent legal developments in the EU. We should just have offered Switzerland to join the EEA or not. If they now opt out of one of the major parts of the Bilateral Treaties, we should just cancel them wholesale and treat Switzerland like every other non-EU country again. It's not holding the knife at their throat, it's offering them to be a club member and play by the rules or not.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 08:58:32 AM
Not really. Cutting Switzerland off from the common market could seriously harm the country. Why do that when by the narrowest of margins all Swiss voters have done is said they want some limit, in 3 years? With business and the government aligned in not wanting any limits, it seems that any limit will be very minor.

The EU will not cancel the treaty but will expect Switzerland to adhere to it. However, the Swiss government must cancel the treaty now according to their constitutional amendment, so the ball is really in their field. They need to approach the EU to negotiate a new deal, the EU just wants to keep the status quo.

Quote from: Zanza on February 11, 2014, 09:53:34 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2014, 08:19:04 AM
Switzerland is party to Schengen, and thus the four freedoms.

Schengen and the four freedoms are different things. Ireland + UK are not part of Schengen, but they have the four freedoms.

You're right, though I don't see how the former makes sense without the latter.

This is one of those situations that brings home for me the shortcomings of simple-majority democracy.  Obviously, you have to deal with the fact that the YES achieved the necessary 50%.  But if 49.7%  of the voting population said NO, it seems strange to refer to the attitudes of "Switzerland" in this regard, even though it is binding politically.  And even though the French and German-speaking cantons split pretty cleanly between each other on the vote, there was a sizable group voting the other way within each canton.

It kind of reminds of me of the 2004 election, and its fallout to the present, where we had/have the Red State-Blue State reductive analysis, even though pretty large sections of each state voted the other way.  So you get state names as metonymy, "Massachusetts" standing in for democratic socialism and "Texas" standing in for evangelical reaction -- and of course the all-important "Ohio," whose symbolic meaning could still be fixed to one pole or another through the strenuous efforts of Guardian letter-writers -- even though there were plenty of people voting for the opposite political party in each state.  (Though, obviously, the French-/German-speaking divide in Switzerland is much older and more profound.)

I have a feeling that the many No-voting Swiss residing or traveling through the rest of Europe for the next 3 years are going to have an experience a little reminiscent of Democrat-voting Americans abroad during the core of the Bush years...

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 11, 2014, 10:34:49 AM
It kind of reminds of me of the 2004 election, and its fallout to the present, where we had/have the Red State-Blue State reductive analysis, even though pretty large sections of each state voted the other way.  So you get state names as metonymy, "Massachusetts" standing in for democratic socialism and "Texas" standing in for evangelical reaction -- and of course the all-important "Ohio," whose symbolic meaning could still be fixed to one pole or another through the strenuous efforts of Guardian letter-writers -- even though there were plenty of people voting for the opposite political party in each state.  (Though, obviously, the French-/German-speaking divide in Switzerland is much older and more profound.)

Sure but doesn't that also come as a result of the majority being larger than just 51%? If a state is consistently voting 60/40 against, kind of makes sense to view through that simplistic lens.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 11, 2014, 10:34:49 AM
This is one of those situations that brings home for me the shortcomings of simple-majority democracy.  Obviously, you have to deal with the fact that the YES achieved the necessary 50%.  But if 49.7%  of the voting population said NO,

Btw, participation in the vote was around 50%. So about half of the people of Switzerland didn't care enough to voice their opinion, and the remainder duked it out.

Personally, I'm not against direct democracy, but it would need a few safeguards.

For one, I think you need a significant part of the populace voting, say 60 or 70%. Otherwise it stands to reason that a significant part of the populace is indifferent, in which case I would want to leave it with elected representatives. Secondly, I would suggest requiring at least a 60-40 split to make sure that the result represents a clear majority of the people who turned out to vote.

Finally, there would need to be mechanisms to protect rights of ethnic/religious/sexual/whatever minorities.

Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2014, 10:49:26 AM
Sure but doesn't that also come as a result of the majority being larger than just 51%? If a state is consistently voting 60/40 against, kind of makes sense to view through that simplistic lens.

I don't know, for me that's just not a big enough majority to really say "State X 'feels' this way about this issue," though of course it's convenient shorthand.  Clearly more people (voting) do than don't, but with 4 disagreeing for every 6 agreeing , I'd say the issue is still contested.  Within the state, that is: I do think that at the municipality level you are (increasingly?) getting pretty clear divisions on political affiliation and most major issues.

Quote from: Syt on February 11, 2014, 10:56:15 AM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 11, 2014, 10:34:49 AM
This is one of those situations that brings home for me the shortcomings of simple-majority democracy.  Obviously, you have to deal with the fact that the YES achieved the necessary 50%.  But if 49.7%  of the voting population said NO,

Btw, participation in the vote was around 50%. So about half of the people of Switzerland didn't care enough to voice their opinion, and the remainder duked it out.

I'm kind of surprised it's so low, given the turnout.  I speculate that the supporters of ballot initiatives tend to be the ones most enthused to actually vote on them.  And it seems like a message that more than 25% of Swiss could get enthused about...

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 11, 2014, 11:15:04 AM

Quote from: Syt on February 11, 2014, 10:56:15 AM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 11, 2014, 10:34:49 AM
This is one of those situations that brings home for me the shortcomings of simple-majority democracy.  Obviously, you have to deal with the fact that the YES achieved the necessary 50%.  But if 49.7%  of the voting population said NO,

Btw, participation in the vote was around 50%.

Wikipedia says 55% turnout, and that 40% is a typical turnout, so participation was actually comparatively high.  :hmm:

The Swiss also voted to keep abortions covered by medical insurance.

Damn, 40%?  In free little Helvetica? :cry: That is USA-level political apathy.

They have a lot of those referendums and often about boring sounding stuff:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_eidgen%C3%B6ssischen_Volksabstimmungen

Quote from: Zanza on February 11, 2014, 11:49:44 AM
They have a lot of those referendums and often about boring sounding stuff:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_eidgen%C3%B6ssischen_Volksabstimmungen

I see.

Looking through Google Translate, the most recent ones all seem like ones worth voting in.  Though I'd probably skip the Bundesbeschluss vom 15. März 2012 über die Jugendmusikförderung (Gegenentwurf zur Volksinitiative «jugend + musik») myself. :swiss:

Looks like they mean it.

QuoteSwiss-EU power talks on hold after immigration vote

(Reuters) The European Commission has stopped talks with Switzerland on a cross-border electricity agreement, a spokeswoman for the EU executive said on Monday, following the country's referendum vote to curtail immigration.

The Commission has been seeking closer power trading ties with Switzerland to complement a common energy market for the 28-strong European Union, which it has a deadline to complete this year.

But it said that talks with Bern about a scheme to make it easier to trade energy could not continue without wider political clarity.

"No technical negotiations on the electricity agreement between Switzerland and the EU are foreseen for the moment," Commission spokeswoman Sabine Berger said. "The way forward needs to be analysed in view of the broader context of the bilateral relations."

Separately, senior European officials said Switzerland could lose its privileged access to the European single market in general following the narrow vote in the referendum on Sunday.

Free movement of people and jobs within its borders is one of the fundamental policies of the EU, and Switzerland, while not a member of the bloc, has participated under a pact with Brussels.

Late last year, EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger had said the Commission was in intense negotiations with Switzerland to integrate it into the bloc's single energy market.

Swiss participation is important for extending the common energy market for countries such as Italy, which border Switzerland.

Even if the regulations on a single market can be hammered out, the European Union still has a huge task ahead to create all the necessary infrastructure for a single energy area.

The Commission has succeeded in encouraging a process called market-coupling, which links together electricity exchanges and standardises trading rules.

Quote from: Zanza on February 11, 2014, 11:49:44 AM
They have a lot of those referendums and often about boring sounding stuff:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_eidgen%C3%B6ssischen_Volksabstimmungen

I guess that's why people are in general ok with a representative deomcracy - so they don't have to deal with all the boring shit that running a country entails. :P

Tierseuchengesetz (animal disease law) for example sounds like something that should best be left to technocrats. Who cares for that except a few farmers?

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 11, 2014, 10:34:49 AM

I have a feeling that the many No-voting Swiss residing or traveling through the rest of Europe for the next 3 years are going to have an experience a little reminiscent of Democrat-voting Americans abroad during the core of the Bush years...

I seriously doubt it. I think all sorts of anti immigration referenda would pass in europe if the countries had the political structure and autonomy to put them to votes. See the comment sections from euro newspapers being posted here. Some people will see the Swiss as heroic, and some will be worried their own country will go down a similar path.

Quote from: Zanza on February 11, 2014, 10:02:05 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 08:40:20 AM
The Swiss only agreed to join the Schengen area when there was the risk of them losing other bilateral treaties with the EU

No, what is at stake here is what was called the "Bilateral Treaties I" from 1999, a set of seven treaties between Switzerland and the EU.
Schengen was part of the set called "Bilateral Treaties II" from 2004.

QuoteThe approach of holding an economic knife to country's throats to keep them in line is bound to backfire--voters are not necessarily rational actors.

It was already a mistake to conclude the original Bilateral Treaties and the EU commission said as much when the question came up to adapt them to recent legal developments in the EU. We should just have offered Switzerland to join the EEA or not. If they now opt out of one of the major parts of the Bilateral Treaties, we should just cancel them wholesale and treat Switzerland like every other non-EU country again. It's not holding the knife at their throat, it's offering them to be a club member and play by the rules or not.

My understanding, which could be wrong because this goes back a long time and I'm hardly all that interested in Switzerland, is that they signed on to the Schengen Agreement with some hint that otherwise a guillotine clause in earlier agreements might be executed and would allow the EU to cancel all of the earlier bilateral agreements.

Switzerland is a small landlocked country in the middle of the EU. Granted, the EU has no obligation to include it in its common market. But putting up a bunch of trade barriers because it wants some theoretical control over its own migration policy doesn't seem reasonable either.

No idea. Without any source the German language Wiki article on those treaties says that the EU commission didn't want to conclude the Bilaterals II. The EU commission has since decided that there will be no more special treaties with Switzerland unless Switzerland agrees to a mechanism similar to EEA which makes EU law automatically applicable in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The EU commission isn't really a fan of these cherry-picking special treaties, which is not surprising.

It would also not be the EU that cancels the earlier agreements. The Swiss government now has a constitutional mandate to cancel one of them and the agreed upon mechanism was that guillotine clause, which would then mean that the Swiss government would cancel all of them by canceling the one on freedom of movement. The EU is happy enough with the status quo, the Swiss want change. Blaming the EU here is barking at the wrong tree.

The EU has zero obligations towards Switzerland other than those in the bilateral treaties. Just like Switzerland considers itself a "Willensnation", meaning a nation built on a voluntary association of different ethnicities in a common state, the EU is also a "Willens"-organisation and Switzerland made abundantly clear that they don't want to be part of it.

Quote from: Zanza on February 11, 2014, 01:17:43 PM
No idea. Without any source the German language Wiki article on those treaties says that the EU commission didn't want to conclude the Bilaterals II. The EU commission has since decided that there will be no more special treaties with Switzerland unless Switzerland agrees to a mechanism similar to EEA which makes EU law automatically applicable in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The EU commission isn't really a fan of these cherry-picking special treaties, which is not surprising.

It would also not be the EU that cancels the earlier agreements. The Swiss government now has a constitutional mandate to cancel one of them and the agreed upon mechanism was that guillotine clause, which would then mean that the Swiss government would cancel all of them by canceling the one on freedom of movement. The EU is happy enough with the status quo, the Swiss want change. Blaming the EU here is barking at the wrong tree.

The EU has zero obligations towards Switzerland other than those in the bilateral treaties. Just like Switzerland considers itself a "Willensnation", meaning a nation built on a voluntary association of different ethnicities in a common state, the EU is also a "Willens"-organisation and Switzerland made abundantly clear that they don't want to be part of it.

I think the EU is a fan of cherry picking the Schengen Agreement. The UK, Ireland, Croatia, Romania, and Bulgaria come to mind.

That said, I don't think it is crazy for the Swiss to want to control migration to their country. Obviously that means the relationship terms with the EU need to be renegotiated. If the EU wants to set terms such as similar restrictions on Swiss working in the EU, and perhaps some minor restrictions on accessing the common market, that seems reasonable. However, I think (maybe incorrectly) that some people seem to have the attitude, "if you want out of schengen, fine, keep your products out of the common market". That doesn't seem reasonable from my point of view.

The EU would love to have all agreements applicable for all countries, but the member countries often want exemptions and asterisks and so on and so forth in every single agreement the EU makes. It's just a huge bargain. A similar mechanism as the silly earmarks in American acts of congress.

The UK and Ireland got an opt-out to the best-known part of the Schengen Agreement, abolition of passport controls, when it was negotiated. They are party to other parts of the Schengen Agreement, namely police and judiciary cooperation, though.
Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria are contractually obligated to join Schengen in the future so they must work towards fulfilling the criteria and will then be admitted. Just like they got admitted to all the other European Treaties. They never got the option to cherry-pick like Switzerland either and needed to agree to the full package. Some of the parts of the Schengen agreement are already in force for Romania and Bulgaria, Croatia is planned to join in 2015. Cyprus is also not part of Schengen due to its unclear border situation with North Cyprus.

The European common market is about four freedoms: goods, services, capital, persons. If Switzerland now wants an exemption from one of these four freedoms, namely the free movement of persons, why is it unreasonable to exclude them from the other freedoms? Why are persons somehow less deserving of freedom than goods, services or capital?

They would get the same deal as e.g. the USA. Still a very important trading partner for the EU, but just not part of its common market anymore. The EU is a very open market for most commodities, so Switzerland could still sell most of their stuff, like e.g. chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc. They would obviously need to fulfill all the necessary regulations and I assume those are quite a bit more tedious for non-EU-producers. I guess some commodities such as agricultural products would be a problem as the EU has a fairly closed market for these. Swiss citizens could still apply for a work visas just like Americans or Europeans in Switzerland. So in general, unless you consider the market access US companies and citizens have to the EU "unreasonable", the access for Switzerland wouldn't be unreasonable either.

Switzerland could stay in Schengen just fine by the way, that's a different treaty. It's admittedly hard to imagine a reintroduction of custom controls along the Swiss border without passport checks, but they could probably continue to participate in the other parts of the Schengen agreement, same as Ireland and UK. As far as I know the Bilaterals II, which Schengen is part of, are not covered under the guillotine clause of the Bilaterals I.

I don't know all the ins and outs of the treaties. I thought the common market was distinct from the migration stuff (which is about being in the EU) which is distinct from Schengen.

Anyway, it shouldn't be too complex to have a separate set of rules for Switzerland. Along with Norway, they are the only country in the central / western european region not in the EU (I don't think I'm forgetting anyone).

Iceland, but they're inbred island hicks, anyways. :P

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 02:19:42 PM
I thought the common market was distinct from the migration stuff (which is about being in the EU)

No. Here is the definition of the internal market:

Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:
The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties.

Quotewhich is distinct from Schengen.

Yes, Schengen is a different set of treaties and has nothing to do with the internal market. It's about border controls and cross-country cooperation for law enforcement.

The freedom of movement for workers was one of the core founding principles of the EEC in 1957 (and goes back to the ECSC of 1951). Schengen is a much newer treaty and was first discussed in the late 1980s and implemented during the 1990s (or 2008 in Switzerland's case).

QuoteAnyway, it shouldn't be too complex to have a separate set of rules for Switzerland. Along with Norway, they are the only country in the central / western european region not in the EU (I don't think I'm forgetting anyone).

The EU would be totally fine with Switzerland getting the same rules as Norway (and Iceland and Liechtenstein), meaning Switzerland joins the EEA. Of course the core principles of the EEA are the four freedoms, one of which Switzerland now wants to abolish. Switzerland voted against joining the EEA in 1992 though and that made those bilateral treaties necessary in the first place. If they would - for whatever reason - now agree to get the same deal as Norway, the EU would be delighted. That has long been the strategic goal of the EU in EU-Swiss relations. It has a chance of 0% in Swiss political reality however.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 02:19:42 PM
I don't know all the ins and outs of the treaties. I thought the common market was distinct from the migration stuff (which is about being in the EU) which is distinct from Schengen.

Anyway, it shouldn't be too complex to have a separate set of rules for Switzerland. Along with Norway, they are the only country in the central / western european region not in the EU (I don't think I'm forgetting anyone).

I'm not sure it's in the Swiss' best interests to push for another custom agreement. There's a lot of talk about tightening the leash on banking in the EU lately.

But then nothing in this whole affair is in the Swiss' best interest. Even if they succeed in curtailing immigration, with unemployment being almost non-existent all they are going to manage is create a manpower shortage.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 02:19:42 PM
I don't know all the ins and outs of the treaties. I thought the common market was distinct from the migration stuff (which is about being in the EU) which is distinct from Schengen.

Here's the text of the "free movement of persons" agreement, for anyone that's interested: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:22002A0430(01):EN:HTML

Alfred, what would you think if Texas would decide in a referendum that this: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; [...] nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." would no longer apply to non-Texans and non-Texan US citizens would no longer have the right to seek work in Texas or move there?

Who cares about Swiss policies? Sounds like a niche interest.

Quote from: Zanza on February 11, 2014, 02:50:23 PM
Alfred, what would you think if Texas would decide in a referendum that this: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; [...] nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." would no longer apply to non-Texans and non-Texans would no longer have the right to seek work in Texas or move there?

Texas isn't a sovereign country and is a part of the US. Switzerland is a sovereign country and isn't even a part of the EU.

I don't really care what happens to Switzerland. I like the Alps, and the Swiss setup makes them quite expensive, so if integrating with the EU causes it to normalize pricing with its neighbors I'm in favor of it.

However, it isn't hard to see that from a Swiss perspective they are taking in a lot of immigrants very quickly. Maybe more than anyone else as a percent of population. That does strain public resources, and is ultimately going to quickly undermine whatever is unique about Swiss culture. In the long term the latter is inevitable in both Switzerland and Europe, but I don't think it crazy for there to be some resistance in Switzerland. I'd also point out that there are real problems in the whole concept of freedom of movement coupled with national citizenship (see the Spanish / sephardi thread for an example).

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 03:02:50 PM
I'd also point out that there are real problems in the whole concept of freedom of movement coupled with national citizenship (see the Spanish / sephardi thread for an example).

That example seems a bit scaremongery. I doubt there is going to be an overwhelming flood of people seeking citizenship.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 03:02:50 PMTexas isn't a sovereign country and is a part of the US. Switzerland is a sovereign country and isn't even a part of the EU.

The EU countries aren't really sovereign anymore either. They voluntarily transferred a lot of their sovereign powers to the EU. They have different powers than US federal states, notably the right to secede from the union. Switzerland is only an associated state to the union, but that doesn't make them fully sovereign until they cut their association with the union again, which now seems to be the case after this referendum. That's fine, the EU commission is not Abraham Lincoln. We'll allow them to leave.

QuoteI don't really care what happens to Switzerland. I like the Alps, and the Swiss setup makes them quite expensive, so if integrating with the EU causes it to normalize pricing with its neighbors I'm in favor of it.

For that they would need to introduce the Euro and then have terrible deflation for a decade or so. Unlikely.

QuoteHowever, it isn't hard to see that from a Swiss perspective they are taking in a lot of immigrants very quickly. Maybe more than anyone else as a percent of population. That does strain public resources, and is ultimately going to quickly undermine whatever is unique about Swiss culture. In the long term the latter is inevitable in both Switzerland and Europe, but I don't think it crazy for there to be some resistance in Switzerland.

Sure. That cannot be the problem of the EU though.

QuoteI'd also point out that there are real problems in the whole concept of freedom of movement coupled with national citizenship (see the Spanish / sephardi thread for an example).

Didn't read that thread, so I don't know what you refer to.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 02:19:42 PM
Anyway, it shouldn't be too complex to have a separate set of rules for Switzerland.

There are, already, separate rules for Switzerland.  And there will continue to be, hence why negotiations are going to take place.  Wheenyness will prevail, this is the EU we are talking about.  The EU is not going to send in the tanks or launch a sanctions regime to strong arm Switzerland.  I do not get the hand wringing on your part.

Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2014, 04:39:50 PM
There are, already, separate rules for Switzerland.  And there will continue to be, hence why negotiations are going to take place.  Wheenyness will prevail, this is the EU we are talking about.  The EU is not going to send in the tanks or launch a sanctions regime to strong arm Switzerland.  I do not get the hand wringing on your part.

From what I'm reading, Switzerland does not have special rules- the concession was an extra five year grace period to phase in the changes.

Quote from: Zanza on February 11, 2014, 03:41:10 AM
Appeasement of right-wing nationalists? How very British of you.

:lol:

I don't think this sort of sentiment is the preserve of right-wing nationalists. Polling in all European countries shows pretty universally negative perceptions of immigration and a desire to reduce it, even in Schengen states of, I think, 8 polled only Sweden and Poland didn't have majority support for re-introducing national border controls. Aside from the economy, immigration is what European voters think is the most important issue facing their country. Lots of states have tried to make moves on this - the Danes, the French, the Italians, the Dutch and the British, off the top of my head - because it's unpopular.

At a time when trust in the EU is at historic lows, a more Eurosceptic Parliament will be choosing the next Commission President (pretty soon too) and the UK may quite possibly be trying to renegotiate their membership I don't think it'd be politically sensible for Europe to make this too big an issue. Until the economic policies on the periphery this was probably the single most unpopular bit of European politics in many countries.

QuoteI don't think the UK would never leave the EU, if leaving the EU meant the loss of all 4 freedoms (as in, losing the free market area). Keeping it "all or nothing" is best for the EU, in my opinion.

I had a conversation about a possible UK vote with a couple of European friends recently. They were both absolutely confident Britain would vote to stay in. I'm really not sure. I'd guess that it'll end up 55-45% in favour. At this point, as former passionate supporter of the EU, I don't know how I'd vote. Again it's not the preserve of right-wing nationalist nuts :P

QuoteIt's hilarious to read that dude in EUOT bitch at Italians stealing jobs in Ticino, an Italian-speaking canton within spitting distance. Especially when unemployment rate is something like 3-4%.

We have something like 5-6 million immigrants from all over the place and about the same number of folks without jobs. The Swiss in our position would be laying down the gas pipes.

In fairness I think Ticino is the one exception to the rule that the fewer immigrants a canton has the more likely they are to vote to restrict immigration.

Also I have sympathy with wanting to be able to limit it in a small country with a 25% immigrant population. I imagine they would have voted differently if it was only half that - like in Spain and the UK.

QuoteThe UK dropping out would be actually seen as a positive for many people, not just wackos. The UK is not exactly a core member, it has plenty of opt-outs. It might not be as mild for the UK though.

I think it would be bad for the EU if the UK left. The only people with any reason to celebrate would be the French :P

The UK is the most liberal, pro-market of the large nations and I think that Germany would eventually miss having another counter-weight to France and the more liberal members of the EU - the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark - would feel a little more lonely.

QuotePersonally, I'm not against direct democracy, but it would need a few safeguards.

Except for major constitutional changes I'm totally against direct democracy. It's the only subject where my thoughts are as one with Maggie Thatcher. Referendums are a 'device for demagogues and dictators'.

Edit: And it is worth remembering that I think we're all the sort of people who get more of the up-side. I'm middle class, university educated, I'm trying to work in a sector with a lot of mobility within Europe and I think I mainly get the benefit of the better service and lower costs. But according to Eurobarometer polls only 20-25% of Europeans would like to live and work abroad (and far fewer have done it, and even fewer are doing it now). If you're not university educated, or middle class, or you're competing for jobs with immigrants then that mobility can seem more of a threat than an opportunity. Again those voters aren't stupid, or wrong, or xenophobes.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 03:02:50 PMI'd also point out that there are real problems in the whole concept of freedom of movement coupled with national citizenship (see the Spanish / sephardi thread for an example).

Sephardi Jews have had access to fast-tracked Spanish citizenship since the Primo de Rivera dictatorship in the 1920s.

Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2014, 04:39:50 PM
I do not get the hand wringing on your part.

I'm not as up on the treaty and legal structures as the Europeans, but I think Sheilbh's points are valid. But mostly, I think it is captured in this exchange:

Quote

Quote

    However, it isn't hard to see that from a Swiss perspective they are taking in a lot of immigrants very quickly. Maybe more than anyone else as a percent of population. That does strain public resources, and is ultimately going to quickly undermine whatever is unique about Swiss culture. In the long term the latter is inevitable in both Switzerland and Europe, but I don't think it crazy for there to be some resistance in Switzerland.

Sure. That cannot be the problem of the EU though.

A group of europeans have a problem, but that isn't the EU's problem? And oh yeah, woe to them if they try to do anything independently.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2014, 05:33:36 PM
Again those voters aren't stupid, or wrong, or xenophobes.

I think the bit in bold is pretty much true and most people are fairly stupid. :(

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2014, 05:33:36 PM
I had a conversation about a possible UK vote with a couple of European friends recently. They were both absolutely confident Britain would vote to stay in. I'm really not sure. I'd guess that it'll end up 55-45% in favour. At this point, as former passionate supporter of the EU, I don't know how I'd vote. Again it's not the preserve of right-wing nationalist nuts :P

I actually think that the percentages will look like that but in reverse (against the EU)...but then I've never made any secret of my position on the issue.

I'm just curious as to whether Sheilbh considers me a "right wing nationalist nut" or not. :)

I also agree that immediately jumping to the "nuclear option" with Switzerland could be politically counterproductive for the Integrationist position. I expect we'll see a lot of rhetoric (as we have been seeing) but then it will die down and we won't see a lot of action* while they wait and see what the Swiss government does.

*Well, more action anyway. The EU have already laid down the "we're serious" political marker with the cancellation of the energy talks.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2014, 05:33:36 PM
I don't think this sort of sentiment is the preserve of right-wing nationalists. Polling in all European countries shows pretty universally negative perceptions of immigration and a desire to reduce it, even in Schengen states of, I think, 8 polled only Sweden and Poland didn't have majority support for re-introducing national border controls. Aside from the economy, immigration is what European voters think is the most important issue facing their country. Lots of states have tried to make moves on this - the Danes, the French, the Italians, the Dutch and the British, off the top of my head - because it's unpopular.

Border controls and immigration are two different things and mixing them is not helpful. The Swiss referendum was on a core tenet of the internal market, namely freedom of movement for workers. It was not about border controls, which is not an internal market issue but part of the Schengen Agreement.
No idea if your list of countries that made moves on it refers to one or the other. I am not particularly familiar with any of these, but as far as I know the Front National in France wants to limit immigration from outside the EU, not to abolish freedom of movement. That's a completely different topic.

QuoteAt a time when trust in the EU is at historic lows, a more Eurosceptic Parliament will be choosing the next Commission President (pretty soon too) and the UK may quite possibly be trying to renegotiate their membership I don't think it'd be politically sensible for Europe to make this too big an issue.

We should make it a big issue. Freedom of movement for workers is the very core of the EU. It was the original agreement on the EEC internal market in 1957 on which everything else was built. If we compromise on that, the rest will fall as well. 

QuoteUntil the economic policies on the periphery this was probably the single most unpopular bit of European politics in many countries.

I doubt that. As far as I can tell, immigration from non-EU countries is unpopular in most countries. But freedom of movement from workers was an issue in Britain with the Poles, but other than that, I don't think it is a major issue in any country. British pensioners moving en masse to Spain? Who cares? Spaniards coming to Germany to work here? No one cares one bit.

QuoteI had a conversation about a possible UK vote with a couple of European friends recently. They were both absolutely confident Britain would vote to stay in. I'm really not sure. I'd guess that it'll end up 55-45% in favour. At this point, as former passionate supporter of the EU, I don't know how I'd vote. Again it's not the preserve of right-wing nationalist nuts :P

Bye.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 08:57:22 PM

Quote

Quote
However, it isn't hard to see that from a Swiss perspective they are taking in a lot of immigrants very quickly. Maybe more than anyone else as a percent of population. That does strain public resources, and is ultimately going to quickly undermine whatever is unique about Swiss culture. In the long term the latter is inevitable in both Switzerland and Europe, but I don't think it crazy for there to be some resistance in Switzerland.

Sure. That cannot be the problem of the EU though.

A group of europeans have a problem, but that isn't the EU's problem? And oh yeah, woe to them if they try to do anything independently.

I have no idea what your point is. Does the EU in your opinion have some kind of general responsibility to consider the peculiar interests of non-EU European countries? Why? Switzerland was invited to join the EU and declined. They got a special, advantageous deal with the EU that no one else got. Now that's not good enough for the Swiss anymore. Should the EU now compromise its core values to accomodate the Swiss? No thanks.

Quote from: Zanza on February 12, 2014, 04:41:20 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 08:57:22 PM

Quote

Quote
However, it isn't hard to see that from a Swiss perspective they are taking in a lot of immigrants very quickly. Maybe more than anyone else as a percent of population. That does strain public resources, and is ultimately going to quickly undermine whatever is unique about Swiss culture. In the long term the latter is inevitable in both Switzerland and Europe, but I don't think it crazy for there to be some resistance in Switzerland.

Sure. That cannot be the problem of the EU though.

A group of europeans have a problem, but that isn't the EU's problem? And oh yeah, woe to them if they try to do anything independently.

I have no idea what your point is. Does the EU in your opinion have some kind of general responsibility to consider the peculiar interests of non-EU European countries? Why? Switzerland was invited to join the EU and declined. They got a special, advantageous deal with the EU that no one else got. Now that's not good enough for the Swiss anymore. Should the EU now compromise its core values to accomodate the Swiss? No thanks.

I agree.


Also, I don't get the all the UK QQ over being an EU member, but I am admittedly ignorant to the finer details. However, having your huge workforce magnet of a capital free access to the labour market of the EU seems like quite a big boost on it's own.

My first thought about the Swiss and the Brits or whoever getting all uppity about immigrants is: who will clean your toilets then?

Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 08:07:32 AM
I'm a bit worried with all these xenophobe outbursts throughout Europe. One thinks that they will go away once the recession finally recedes, since people are mostly blaming their problems on "the outsider". But then again, Switzerland has done well during it.

Just to come back to this, I don't think it's to do with the crisis as this vote demonstrates. If you look at the countries with a very successful far or populist right, they're generally not the ones worst hit by the recession: Finland, the Netherlands, Austria, arguably Belgium. By contrast there's a good chunk of crisis countries that to my knowledge don't have any far right at all (Ireland, Cyprus, Spain and Portugal). Maybe the recession accelerated their growth, but I don't think it's the cause.

A couple of British academics wrote a blog on this:
http://extremisproject.org/2012/08/extremism-and-economics-a-complicated-relationship/

QuoteBorder controls and immigration are two different things and mixing them is not helpful. The Swiss referendum was on a core tenet of the internal market, namely freedom of movement for workers. It was not about border controls, which is not an internal market issue but part of the Schengen Agreement.

Okay, but in that poll the overwhelming reason people supported reintroducing border controls was to reduce immigration. They are linked in people's minds, the fact that people wrongly want to do it to reduce immigration doesn't change the fact they want to reduce immigration. I used to think in the UK anti-immigration was primarily about non-EU citizens but that changed and I think something similar is happening in Europe. In many countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, a majority would already support national government control of intra-EU migration.

Most Europeans do think that migrants put a strain on the welfare state and almost as many French and German voters want to put limits on EU citizens accessing their welfare state. I think it's probably not uncoincidental that Switzerland is thinking like this when they've got a vote on universal basic income soon.

QuoteBut freedom of movement from workers was an issue in Britain with the Poles, but other than that, I don't think it is a major issue in any country.

Not a major issue yet. But as I say the polling in most European countries suggests people are extremely ambivalent about it (as I said only 20-5% of people would want to live and work in another country) and would probably rather it were controlled at the national level. I imagine that sentiment will grow - as it did in the UK - with the EU migrant population.

Quote from: Tamas on February 12, 2014, 04:51:12 AM
My first thought about the Swiss and the Brits or whoever getting all uppity about immigrants is: who will clean your toilets then?

Local residents?  :unsure:

Quote from: Tamas on February 12, 2014, 04:51:12 AM
Also, I don't get the all the UK QQ over being an EU member, but I am admittedly ignorant to the finer details. However, having your huge workforce magnet of a capital free access to the labour market of the EU seems like quite a big boost on it's own.

My first thought about the Swiss and the Brits or whoever getting all uppity about immigrants is: who will clean your toilets then?

If you're interested I'd recommend the Telegraph and Spectator blogs to see strong British Euroscepticism.

Avoid the comments sections :lol:

Edit: I'll be interested to see your views because British Euroscepticism has many strands, but one of the most dominant is a very strong ultra-libertarian streak.

Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2014, 12:09:40 PM

Quote from: Tamas on February 12, 2014, 04:51:12 AM
My first thought about the Swiss and the Brits or whoever getting all uppity about immigrants is: who will clean your toilets then?

Local residents?  :unsure:

That can be an answer in Spain or Italy. Switzerland has effectively no unemployed (3.5%). Wonder where they are going to find enough natives to cover the jobs all those foreign workers are doing.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2014, 12:13:48 PM

Quote from: Tamas on February 12, 2014, 04:51:12 AM
Also, I don't get the all the UK QQ over being an EU member, but I am admittedly ignorant to the finer details. However, having your huge workforce magnet of a capital free access to the labour market of the EU seems like quite a big boost on it's own.

My first thought about the Swiss and the Brits or whoever getting all uppity about immigrants is: who will clean your toilets then?

If you're interested I'd recommend the Telegraph and Spectator blogs to see strong British Euroscepticism.

Avoid the comments sections :lol:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10633468/EU-calls-for-dilution-of-US-control-over-internet.html

First comment:

QuoteI will take ICANNand the NSA over anything the EUSSR Mafia proposes all day long.
The reason the EU are worried about US control of the internet is they are corrupt and want another layer of protection for their illegal rape of European Tax Payers Wallets

Third comment:

Quotearr don't you just love the EU? Full of idiots and people who couldn't get vote in to the government of their own country or had been voted in to government and then found wanting in the brain dept and lost their seat.

Now the EU want to try and take control of the internet from the USA. Why we may ask, over the security issues of watching peoples data. I don't think so, more like to control what the people in the EU can or cannot see when on the internet and to find away of taxing it so the EU get even more money to waste on pointless projects and over paid members of staff.
The EU cannot even run what it got already, just look at the mess it is in, with countries so in owing so much money that it going to take them 50 plus years to pay off and that only if they make a profit every year. The EU has high unemployment.
The EU has mass migration which is because the EU system doesn't work.
If the EU want to do something then stop migration. This can easily be done by raising wages to be the same in every country. This should be part of joining the EU. This would also make every country equal in standard of living.
Instead they change the rules for a country to join. But don't think of the damage to other countries without that country joining having the same standard of living.
Even the block who designed the Euro said it cannot and will not work as they change the rules for joining it.

Now they want to mess up the internet for everyone by trying to take control in the name of security.
What people have to remember is if you have not done anything wrong you are not going to be of any interest to the USA or British government.
An even if you do something wrong from time to time you are still not going to be of much interest to them. They are only after the people that wish to do us all damage in some way.
The EU would use this as away of changing what we see and do. Pointing everything in a pro EU way.
It would stop anything bad or damaging about the EU from being seen.
We have law in this country and if the people of the country wanted something done then we would goto our MPs and tell them then government would do something, normally by making a new or change a law.
We don't need the likes of the EU messing with something it doesn't understand.
Like the deal it just done with google costing the EU billions in the process. Not even using the so called skilled Tech people it has to check over the deal. But letting someone that knows nothing about tech do the deal.

:lol: / :bleeding:

I kind of "get" swiss concerns over migration, at least in part.

Right now Switzerland allows free movement.  Anyone from anywhere in the EU can come to Switzerland to live and work.  However, Swiss citizenship appears to be very difficult to gain.  You have to reside in the country for 12 years, plus you have to abide by immigration restrictions placed by your individual canton.  Ultimately, that kind of policy can potentially lead to Swiss citizens becoming a minority within their own country.  Surely it can not be healthy for that to happen.

Of course just closing up your borders is going to bring up a whole host of its own problems (namely the "who's going to do all the menial jobs"), but it does keep Switzerland as the home of the Swiss.

Quote from: Iormlund on February 12, 2014, 12:35:10 PM
That can be an answer in Spain or Italy. Switzerland has effectively no unemployed (3.5%). Wonder where they are going to find enough natives to cover the jobs all those foreign workers are doing.

Nigel Farage recently said something really interesting about immigration, that he'd rather we were slightly less rich but have more cohesive stable communities. It was striking because it's the first time I can think of a politician say we should go for anything but maximising economic growth and, I think, it might actually be quite a popular message.

QuoteRight now Switzerland allows free movement.  Anyone from anywhere in the EU can come to Switzerland to live and work.  However, Swiss citizenship appears to be very difficult to gain.  You have to reside in the country for 12 years, plus you have to abide by immigration restrictions placed by your individual canton.  Ultimately, that kind of policy can potentially lead to Swiss citizens becoming a minority within their own country.  Surely it can not be healthy for that to happen.

As I say I think the EU should be a bit more understanding of Switzerland and Luxembourg (also very concerned about immigration) because 25% and 35% of the population are foreign-born. I don't think anyone really wants to turn a couple of small EU states (strikingly Malta's the one most worried about immigration) into slightly bigger European Dubais.

Quote from: Syt on February 12, 2014, 12:38:03 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10633468/EU-calls-for-dilution-of-US-control-over-internet.html

I think EUSSR is my favourite absurd commentator trope. It's even better than AmeriKKKa or Obamanation :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2014, 12:46:20 PM

QuoteRight now Switzerland allows free movement.  Anyone from anywhere in the EU can come to Switzerland to live and work.  However, Swiss citizenship appears to be very difficult to gain.  You have to reside in the country for 12 years, plus you have to abide by immigration restrictions placed by your individual canton.  Ultimately, that kind of policy can potentially lead to Swiss citizens becoming a minority within their own country.  Surely it can not be healthy for that to happen.

As I say I think the EU should be a bit more understanding of Switzerland and Luxembourg (also very concerned about immigration) because 25% and 35% of the population are foreign-born. I don't think anyone really wants to turn a couple of small EU states (strikingly Malta's the one most worried about immigration) into slightly bigger European Dubais.

Or. of course, Switzerland could loosen up its citizenship requirements...

I mean - 20.6% of Canadians are foreign born, but we mostly don't consider that a problem because they have citizenship and are considered to be Canadians.

Meh. Sheilbh, many of those immigrants are German/Austrians in German-speaking cantons, French in French-speaking cantons and Italians in ... well, you know where. The closest we get culturally to a native is a guy raised on the streets of Bogotá, Quito or - if you're lucky - Buenos Aires.

Quote from: Iormlund on February 12, 2014, 12:55:13 PM
Meh. Sheilbh, many of those immigrants are German/Austrians in German-speaking cantons, French in French-speaking cantons and Italians in ... well, you know where. The closest we get culturally to a native is a guy raised on the streets of Bogotá, Quito or - if you're lucky - Buenos Aires.

Yeah. But Spain's an exception in having a huge surge of immigration with no backlash at all really. From what I've read (here: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/TCM-Spaincasestudy.pdf ) Spain's very sensible and I'd want in an immigration policy. But other people will disagree.

QuoteOr. of course, Switzerland could loosen up its citizenship requirements...

True. But they don't want to and I'm not sure it would help. They're not EU members so new citizens wouldn't become EU citizens and existing EU citizens who became Swiss would possibly lose their EU passport.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2014, 01:03:47 PM

QuoteOr. of course, Switzerland could loosen up its citizenship requirements...

True. But they don't want to and I'm not sure it would help. They're not EU members so new citizens wouldn't become EU citizens and existing EU citizens who became Swiss would possibly lose their EU passport.

Something is not right over there when second and third generation inmigrants still don't have a chance to achieve Swiss citizenship, despite being born there and living there all their lives.

Because of the new constitutional mandate and despite an agreement from last year about this, the Swiss government will not extend freedom of movement to the citizens of the new EU member Croatia.

The EU has meanwhile suspended talks about a Swiss participation in Horizon 2020, its research grant program that has placements of scientists in other countries as a major building bloc, and Erasmus+, its student exchange program. Both are based on the freedom of movement, so Swiss citizens will likely be excluded from them in the future.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26225121

Quote from: The Larch on February 12, 2014, 03:23:52 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2014, 01:03:47 PM

QuoteOr. of course, Switzerland could loosen up its citizenship requirements...

True. But they don't want to and I'm not sure it would help. They're not EU members so new citizens wouldn't become EU citizens and existing EU citizens who became Swiss would possibly lose their EU passport.

Something is not right over there when second and third generation inmigrants still don't have a chance to achieve Swiss citizenship, despite being born there and living there all their lives.

Well there is that of course. Was it the former US ambassador in Denmark who, when departing, mentioned that perhaps it would be a neat idea to call "2nd or 3rd generation immigrants" "Danes" instead?

In fact the whole term is highly racist if you think about it. If even your parents were born in the country, the only basis for society to consider you an outsider is your skin colour.

Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2014, 10:20:26 AM
In fact the whole term is highly racist if you think about it. If even your parents were born in the country, the only basis for society to consider you an outsider is your skin colour.

Well, that and your adoption of foreign customs such as radial Islam.

Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2014, 10:19:18 AM
Well there is that of course. Was it the former US ambassador in Denmark who, when departing, mentioned that perhaps it would be a neat idea to call "2nd or 3rd generation immigrants" "Danes" instead?

The problem is that for a lot of countries like Denmark the word can either mean citizenship or ethnicity.

Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2014, 10:19:18 AM
Well there is that of course. Was it the former US ambassador in Denmark who, when departing, mentioned that perhaps it would be a neat idea to call "2nd or 3rd generation immigrants" "Danes" instead?

Do you call your 25th generation Roma Magyars?

I don't think this guy thought his plan through.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ethiopian-airlines-jet-hijacked-co-pilot-geneva-airport-boss-n31916

Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2014, 11:58:53 AM

Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2014, 10:19:18 AM
Well there is that of course. Was it the former US ambassador in Denmark who, when departing, mentioned that perhaps it would be a neat idea to call "2nd or 3rd generation immigrants" "Danes" instead?

Do you call your 25th generation Roma Magyars?

No, and I never said we did. Also, it is not good that we don't.

Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2014, 10:19:18 AM

Quote from: The Larch on February 12, 2014, 03:23:52 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2014, 01:03:47 PM

QuoteOr. of course, Switzerland could loosen up its citizenship requirements...

True. But they don't want to and I'm not sure it would help. They're not EU members so new citizens wouldn't become EU citizens and existing EU citizens who became Swiss would possibly lose their EU passport.

Something is not right over there when second and third generation inmigrants still don't have a chance to achieve Swiss citizenship, despite being born there and living there all their lives.

Well there is that of course. Was it the former US ambassador in Denmark who, when departing, mentioned that perhaps it would be a neat idea to call "2nd or 3rd generation immigrants" "Danes" instead?

If we did that we wouldn't have any Americans. :lol: