4 ms·

Totally understandable decesion, don't see anything wrong about it.

by RivieraKid 14y ago

a_c_s 14y ago
You mean except for the part where they previously agreed not to do so?
- zimbatm 14y ago
  You mean before they started getting 80k immigrants a year ? EDIT: 80k / year represents ~1% of the actual population
- RivieraKid 14y ago
  If it was more than an informal agreement, then yes, except for that I don't see a problem.
- jvm 14y ago
  When they made the agreement, they included a "safeguard clause" indicating that the deal would be off if immigration exceeded a particular amount. It has. I'm completely against the policy, but it's not a violation of the agreement.
  - paradoja 14y ago
    > I'm completely against the policy, but it's not a violation of the agreement. That is not clear. EU officials say that it is indeed a violation of the agreement: “The measures adopted today by the Swiss government are contrary to the agreement on the Free Movement of Persons, since they differentiate between groups of member states.” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f70bc54-ad0c-11e2-9454-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2RQRJECSf http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f70bc54-ad0c-11e2-9454-00144feabd...
    - Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
      If it is not clear whether it's a violation of the agreement, then it is dishonest to accuse them of being in violation of the agreement.
      - paradoja 14y ago
        It is not. One side may have no doubt it is a violation of the agreement, and say so. There is no problem with that.
        Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
        If I don't know whether my laptop has been stolen or simply forgotten in some coffee house but I accuse you of taking it because I don't like your politics, that makes me a liar.
        paradoja 14y ago
        Yes. And that has no relation with what we are talking about. If the Swiss government doesn't follow the written rules of the agreement, it is in violation of them. Saying so doesn't make one a lier.
jsnell 14y ago
It might be understandable. It might not even be surprising -- it's only a few years since Switzerland last tried to pull off a "let's cut all the permit quotas drastically" trick. But it's also very short-sighted. There aren't a lot of reasons to actually start new business in Switzerland (awkward regulatory environment, tiny internal market, very high costs). A mostly sane immigration policy has been one of the main things the country has going for it. Sudden changes in the policy make for an increasingly hostile business environment.
- oellegaard 14y ago
  Indeed. This could force Google to move its EU HQ to some other country.
  - thomasjames 14y ago
    They already bought the land for their massive new facility in London.
- RivieraKid 14y ago
  Immigration is not entirely positive, it has complex effects on the society and economy. I don't know whether 80 000 per year is the optimal limit, but I oppose to the idea that foreigners have moral right for immigration. It's a democratic decision, they may be wrong, but it's them who's best positioned to decide what's best for them.

Totally understandable decesion, don't see anything wrong about it.

a_c_s 14y ago

You mean except for the part where they previously agreed not to do so?

zimbatm 14y ago
You mean before they started getting 80k immigrants a year ? EDIT: 80k / year represents ~1% of the actual population
RivieraKid 14y ago
If it was more than an informal agreement, then yes, except for that I don't see a problem.
jvm 14y ago
When they made the agreement, they included a "safeguard clause" indicating that the deal would be off if immigration exceeded a particular amount. It has. I'm completely against the policy, but it's not a violation of the agreement.
- paradoja 14y ago
  > I'm completely against the policy, but it's not a violation of the agreement. That is not clear. EU officials say that it is indeed a violation of the agreement: “The measures adopted today by the Swiss government are contrary to the agreement on the Free Movement of Persons, since they differentiate between groups of member states.” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f70bc54-ad0c-11e2-9454-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2RQRJECSf http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f70bc54-ad0c-11e2-9454-00144feabd...
  - Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
    If it is not clear whether it's a violation of the agreement, then it is dishonest to accuse them of being in violation of the agreement.
    - paradoja 14y ago
      It is not. One side may have no doubt it is a violation of the agreement, and say so. There is no problem with that.
      - Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
        If I don't know whether my laptop has been stolen or simply forgotten in some coffee house but I accuse you of taking it because I don't like your politics, that makes me a liar.
        paradoja 14y ago
        Yes. And that has no relation with what we are talking about. If the Swiss government doesn't follow the written rules of the agreement, it is in violation of them. Saying so doesn't make one a lier.

jsnell 14y ago

It might be understandable. It might not even be surprising -- it's only a few years since Switzerland last tried to pull off a "let's cut all the permit quotas drastically" trick. But it's also very short-sighted. There aren't a lot of reasons to actually start new business in Switzerland (awkward regulatory environment, tiny internal market, very high costs). A mostly sane immigration policy has been one of the main things the country has going for it. Sudden changes in the policy make for an increasingly hostile business environment.

oellegaard 14y ago
Indeed. This could force Google to move its EU HQ to some other country.
- thomasjames 14y ago
  They already bought the land for their massive new facility in London.
RivieraKid 14y ago
Immigration is not entirely positive, it has complex effects on the society and economy. I don't know whether 80 000 per year is the optimal limit, but I oppose to the idea that foreigners have moral right for immigration. It's a democratic decision, they may be wrong, but it's them who's best positioned to decide what's best for them.