5 ms·

This law was not backed by the party that usually campaigns for harsher immigration laws. The reason is that this party just recently managed to pass an immigra

by zupatol 12y ago

This law was not backed by the party that usually campaigns for harsher immigration laws. The reason is that this party just recently managed to pass an immigration law so harsh it's incompatible with Switzerland's treaties with the EU. All through the campaign they said if the law would pass then we would just renegotiate the treaties. Nine months later no one knows yet how to convince the EU of accepting to change the treaties, or how to interpret that law in way the EU won't mind. And there seems to be a wide agreement that people want to keep the treaties. So we have this huge unsolved problem and on top of that we have to vote on an insanely restrictive immigration law that goes much further than the last one, and doesn't even really pretend it won't harm the economy. When you vote you get a little brochure with the recommendations of the different parties. Here in Geneva every single party, even the most rabid racists, recommended to vote no. I think it's the first time in my life I saw this unanimity.

Tomte 12y ago
The EU will not change those treaties, because it has no real reason to. And especially now: How do you refuse something to David Cameron's UK (a big member state), but hand it to Switzerland (a small non-member state)? In the case of the UK, it would demolish the very core idea and foundation of the EU. This UK parallel makes it very, very unlikely that the EU would give anything to Switzerland that could even only hint at flexibility in this matter. The "best" outcome Switzerland can hope for (unless they repeal that immigration reform) is a state where Switzerland is in breach of the treaties, but the EU looks the other way, either on purpose, or because the member states cannot agree on a way to handle the situation. This couldn't last forever, though. And by the way: Trying to have a treaty re-negotiated has already worked out not so very well for Switzerland in the case of Zurich airport. ;-) Although I have to admit, we Germans basically did the same thing to Switzerland in the case of the CDs with tax data. It is a shitty thing to do.
- Nursie 12y ago
  Heh, true, if the Swiss were to be allowed a renegotiation, all the arguments about how the UK either wouldn't be allowed to do the same, or wouldn't be allowed to leave the EU, change it's laws and occupy a common market position like Switzerland ... well they'd all look like lies! The next few years are going to be interesting for the EU. The Brits are looking at trying to stop total free movement (or at least end social protections for those that do), the Germans have actually been looking at something similar (restrictions on access to Social Security). The UK is also currently in the grip of some sort of polarisation of politics with the right wing making gains in unexpected places (UKIP), and a serious public dialog about leaving the EU entirely. France is in the grips of a major swing to the right (The Front National would probably win a presidential election if one were held now)... Interesting times.
- raverbashing 12y ago
  And by the way, Switzerland is not part of the EU (they're part of the Schengen agreement, part of the EFTA and have some agreements with the EU)
  - Tomte 12y ago
    What about "non-member state" seemed unclear to you?
    - raverbashing 12y ago
      Nothing, but discussing "How do you refuse something to David Cameron's UK (a big member state), but hand it to (a non member state)" is kind of obvious no? One is a member, the other one is not.
      - Tomte 12y ago
        It's obvious that it wouldn't work. The EU cannot tell Britain that free movement of people is essential enough to see them leave the Union, but then hand it to Switzerland, just because they ask nicely. Those bilaterals with Switzerland are not some totally unrelated treaties, they are more like "EU membership light".
        raverbashing 12y ago
        Yes, the EU needs the UK and Switzerland, and they both don't want to commit fully to it in one way or another (like the UK not using the Euro - good for them btw) True, they can't let CH slip on that, at the same time, they'll probably do come with a compromise (or look the other way in some aspects)
        Tomte 12y ago
        We kind of need Britain, although not absolutely. Switzerland? You're joking, right? Nobody wants to hurt Switzerland, or give them a hard time, but if they turn away, the reaction will mostly be a shrug.

by zupatol 12y ago

Tomte 12y ago

The EU will not change those treaties, because it has no real reason to. And especially now: How do you refuse something to David Cameron's UK (a big member state), but hand it to Switzerland (a small non-member state)? In the case of the UK, it would demolish the very core idea and foundation of the EU. This UK parallel makes it very, very unlikely that the EU would give anything to Switzerland that could even only hint at flexibility in this matter. The "best" outcome Switzerland can hope for (unless they repeal that immigration reform) is a state where Switzerland is in breach of the treaties, but the EU looks the other way, either on purpose, or because the member states cannot agree on a way to handle the situation. This couldn't last forever, though. And by the way: Trying to have a treaty re-negotiated has already worked out not so very well for Switzerland in the case of Zurich airport. ;-) Although I have to admit, we Germans basically did the same thing to Switzerland in the case of the CDs with tax data. It is a shitty thing to do.

Nursie 12y ago
Heh, true, if the Swiss were to be allowed a renegotiation, all the arguments about how the UK either wouldn't be allowed to do the same, or wouldn't be allowed to leave the EU, change it's laws and occupy a common market position like Switzerland ... well they'd all look like lies! The next few years are going to be interesting for the EU. The Brits are looking at trying to stop total free movement (or at least end social protections for those that do), the Germans have actually been looking at something similar (restrictions on access to Social Security). The UK is also currently in the grip of some sort of polarisation of politics with the right wing making gains in unexpected places (UKIP), and a serious public dialog about leaving the EU entirely. France is in the grips of a major swing to the right (The Front National would probably win a presidential election if one were held now)... Interesting times.
raverbashing 12y ago
And by the way, Switzerland is not part of the EU (they're part of the Schengen agreement, part of the EFTA and have some agreements with the EU)
- Tomte 12y ago
  What about "non-member state" seemed unclear to you?
  - raverbashing 12y ago
    Nothing, but discussing "How do you refuse something to David Cameron's UK (a big member state), but hand it to (a non member state)" is kind of obvious no? One is a member, the other one is not.
    - Tomte 12y ago
      It's obvious that it wouldn't work. The EU cannot tell Britain that free movement of people is essential enough to see them leave the Union, but then hand it to Switzerland, just because they ask nicely. Those bilaterals with Switzerland are not some totally unrelated treaties, they are more like "EU membership light".
      - raverbashing 12y ago
        Yes, the EU needs the UK and Switzerland, and they both don't want to commit fully to it in one way or another (like the UK not using the Euro - good for them btw) True, they can't let CH slip on that, at the same time, they'll probably do come with a compromise (or look the other way in some aspects)
        Tomte 12y ago
        We kind of need Britain, although not absolutely. Switzerland? You're joking, right? Nobody wants to hurt Switzerland, or give them a hard time, but if they turn away, the reaction will mostly be a shrug.