Hacker News Reader

Comment by icefo | Hacker News Reader

Same kind of thing is happening in Switzerland.

The people voted to restrict the number of foreigners that can go in the country which is against the treaty of free movement that Switzerland signed with the EU which probably (it has been a while since I looked up the consequences) make lots if not all the other treaties that Switzerland and the EU signed invalid. For example the EU is threatening to cut research funding among other stuff like partnership in space exploration...

The people that were against the law didn't think it would pass and didn't really fight against it and now Switzerland and the EU have until the end of year to agree on something. I wonder how it will pan out... Maybe a revote ? You probably didn't understand the consequences of this law. Are you sure you want this ?

View on HN

When discussing "free movement" and "immigration" with regards to Switzerland, you always need to keep in mind that the Swiss have the highest percentage of foreigners of all European countries (by a good margin as I remember).

A natural feeling of "saturation" that comes with it doesn't really seem surprising, racist or anything like that.

> by a good margin as I remember

It's about 25%. If you look into the results of the original popular initiative you will see that the cantons with the highest levels of immigration voted the most strongly against the initiative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_...

You might think that makes sense, but consider that if you are not Swiss you do not get a vote. The path to naturalisation in Switzerland takes at least ten years, which in some way explains the high relative level of foreigners in the country. There are second and third generation immigrants here who are still not Swiss due to the nature of the process.

Switzerland needs its Ausländer/Étrangers/Stranieri/Esters, a large part of the economy here would collapse otherwise.

Same thing with Brexit. The areas with the most immigrants voted remain. I guess if you don't like foreigners you're not going to live somewhere like London which is pretty international these days.

I was immensely frustrated by the Brexit campaign and outcome. I haven't said anything about this online, other than a short photo essay[1], so this is the one time i'll allow myself to vent.

My personal opinion, possibly misjudged given my age (mid thirties), is that the problems the UK is seeing (especially in the areas that voted leave) stem from the actions of the Thatcher government and have little to do with any of the arguments that passport-waving Farage and his ilk put forward.

The ripples from the destruction of industry in the north, the deregulation of the financial markets, and the tearing down of the unions are felt strongly thirty years later, especially in those areas that voted to leave.

I'm just flabbergasted that a generation that was screwed over thirty years ago would repeat the same mistake, and potentially screw over their own offspring's future. They ate up the arguments that somehow the local problems are all the fault of an external entity, and seemed to suffer from acute memory loss.

[1] https://leejo.github.io/2016/06/22/two_weeks_to_decide/ (the title is a lie, i was always going to vote remain).

True, but nobody was offered a referendum to reverse Thatcherism. Brexit was pretty much the only real opportunity the North of England has been given in the last 20 years to vote against the continuing erosion of their wages.

Indeed, there was no alternative to Thatcherism in the 80s because the Labour party was in a state. History appears to be repeating itself[1]. Given the Lib Dem's self destruction out of the previous coalition as well, we stand to see a Tory government for at least the next two election cycles.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)#Internal_con...

I was surprised they didn't vote more solidly Labour in 2010 and 2015 which might have helped.

> the cantons with the highest levels of immigration voted the most strongly against the initiative.

This appears to be the pattern most places, including Brittain and the US. If this indicates that people learn to live with each other, then it's probably a good sign.

The odd country out seems to be Sweden, where the "not much immigrated to" countryside seems to be more positive towards immigration than the urban areas. I'm still not quite sure why. Maybe they haven't been as good at distributing the immigration across the country?

Yes, I'm sure I want this. Are you sure you want to get bribed with money for science to completely give up every single shred of independence and autonomy? The issue is much larger than science funding. The issue is that the EU bullies and pushes everyone in Europe around at its whim and people are incredibly fearful of taking back control of their own countries because of EU repercussions. Just think: The EU threatens to cancel student exchanges with Switzerland if the Swiss control their borders again. These are absolutely disgusting power plays: The student exchange has a longstanding tradition and existed way before the EU shat in its diapers, and during a time where border controls were very strict. And now it thinks it can just cancel that? Why isn't anyone calling the EU out on this? The Swiss people voted for something, it would be unconstitutional and even illegal not to do it now. If this does not happen, the Swiss direct democracy has been overruled by the EU, which would be an extremely dangerous and undemocratic precedent.

Do you have source for "EU wants to forbid student exchange between willing parties", or did I misunderstand you and you are trying to say that EU is evil because they don't want to pay for the stuff from EU pocket?

He didn't say "wants to forbid", he said "is cancelling" and he is referring to the ERASMUS scheme from which Switzerland has been suspended:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Programme

Ironically, "the programme is named after the Dutch philosopher Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, known as an opponent of dogmatism, who lived and worked in many places in Europe to expand his knowledge and gain new insights, and who left his fortune to the University of Basel in Switzerland.[1] At the same time, ERASMUS is a backronym meaning European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students.[1]"

Erasmus is an EU program. Why should Switzerland be allowed to take part in it while breaking the rules that all countries taking part in this program are respecting?

Is Switzerland wants to take part in an exchange program with different rules, it should negotiate one with the interested parties (EU and others).

Because the EU should not be a collection of artificially bound yet unrelated policies.

And don't get me started on respecting the EU rules. Let's talk about that once Germany starts paying big fines to the EU for violating its rules on running trade surpluses, shall we?

I quite agree that Switzerland and other countries should start bypassing the EU though. Erasmus is, at least, not one of those things where the EU demands exclusivity.

But demands free movement of people.

Actually, the EU is happy to negotiate treaties with countries outside the EU. Conditions usually include free movement of people. If the country negotiating does not agree with these terms, the treaty is void. It can try to negatiate a special treaty, but the EU is not usually inclined to do that, for multiple reasons, not least to avoid setting precedents, to avoid effort duplicity, etc

EDIT: I forgot the main reason, from my point of view. The EU has been built with the person, the human being, at its center, with the idea that we all have the same rights. And one important right is freedom of movement. A union were goods, money and services can freely move, but people are forbidden to do so is not worth the trouble.

Free movement of people is never a part of the EU's free trade deals (with non-geographically European countries). Where did you get that idea?

Look at CETA or TTIP.

Your treaty blueprint for a deal EU-Switzerland is a treaty with a non-European union, with roughly the same surface as the whole Europe, and in one case with a population close to EU's? Also, both areas have much higher GDP than Switzerland, and huge amount of natural resources.

Not sure what your point is, but anyway it seems that the EU has already made up his mind on this matter and requires free movement of people for Switzerland to get access to the economic area.

Look, it's a lack of goodwill. The student exchange could easily stay in place, it would be trivial to set up an agreement and if there are costs the EU would have to bear as a consequence, Switzerland could pay it. There aren't that many students.

But no, that's not what happens. The EU uses this as another bargaining chip, so it has the students and university faculty in its pockets. The strategy is obvious, and anyone who does not look through it is blind. No, don't sell Switzerland out. Autonomy is much more valuable than a couple of financial and contractual bribes.

The exchange program depends on synchronization of university syllabi. Without an institution to synchronize them among universities, having Erasmus is more effort.

Therefore, no, keeping the exchange program without EU membership and free movement is not easy, if possible at all.

How do you distinguish between a power play and a calm and reasoned "okay, this arrangement is over and therefore so are all of its provisions"? I don't doubt for a second that the EU's diplomats would resort to power plays and threats when they believe it's in their best interests, but dismantling the provisions of a treaty when that treaty no longer exists isn't a repercussion or a threat or bullying, it's just kind of how treaties work.

>The student exchange has a longstanding tradition and existed way before the EU shat in its diapers, and during a time where border controls were very strict. And now it thinks it can just cancel that?

Yes, because now the ability to control that program lies with the UE. That's how it works.

>The Swiss people voted for something, it would be unconstitutional and even illegal not to do it now.

Nobody is saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it, it's just that doing it violates an agreement Switzerland made with the EU and there are consequences for that. Consequences that were clear to people who bothered to learn about the issue before voting. This isn't some crazy contrived plot to exert control over the Swiss by the EU, it's just the Swiss having to face the consequences of their actions.

> Yes, because now the ability to control that program lies with the UE. That's how it works.

Look, just because someone has the ability and legal foundation to do something doesn't mean they aren't a complete douche if they do it. If I was the hackernews admin and would delete all your posts because I disagree with you, that would be a douche thing to do but I would have every right to do it. Similarly, I don't claim the EU does something that is forbidden, but everyone should unite and stand up to manipulative bullying strategies like that.

You sound exactly like the state-level Republican politicians in Louisiana blaming everything bad on the federal government. As a result, a slim majority of Louisiana Republicans blame Obama for the slow Katrina response.

A seemingly vast majority of Democrats blamed George Bush for the dotcom crash while simultaneously giving Bill Clinton credit for the boom. People don't make a lot of sense when you start scratching their political beliefs.

I'm am not saying that you are wrong, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you are saying.

However, I do want to point out something peculiar, an assumption underlying your opinion.

> "every single shred of independence and autonomy".

> "The issue is that the EU bullies and pushes everyone in Europe around at its whim"

Why is that a problem? Are the people who govern the EU (or any large government structure) not the same as you are? Do you think they are malicious and exploitive? The loss of your independence is just arbitrary lines. It has happened before, it will happen again. Pushing policy is what it means to govern, people in the opposition will always decry the decisions of those currently behind the wheel by definition.

Maybe there is something to be said about undemocratic properties in the current EU structure, I wouldn't know.

> Do you think they are malicious and exploitive?

A governing body could just as easily be ignorant or wasteful and the country ends up in the same position. Either way, you get rid of the cancer.

Then would you suggest anarchy? If not, then where would you draw the line?

Also, pardon my ignorance on the topic, but other than the free movement treaty (and the others) that Switzerland signed itself, how does the EU control the country of Switzerland?

I draw the line at having yet another layer of governing. Wasn't proposing anarchy.

I was talking about a revote because I think that too much people voted thinking: yeah less foreigners sounds good and had no idea of the possible consequences if the swiss diplomats didn't work a miracle

As a swiss this saddens me but I think the EU is right to use the big guns because free movement is the foundation of the EU. If the swiss get an exception it would be hard to deny it to other states. "Unfair ! I also want to restrict the number of polish going in my country"

I think that the swiss government should focus on punishing salary-dumping because that's what most people are afraid of when they think of foreigners: he's going to do my job for less money. I heard it's a big problem in Tessin.

Firms should be able to hire anyone they want but they should give them a swiss salary, swiss or not and pay a big fine if they don't.

> I think that the swiss government should focus on punishing salary-dumping because that's what most people are afraid of when they think of foreigners: he's going to do my job for less money. I heard it's a big problem in Tessin.

This. I hope all countries will take this challenge seriously. It ties in with the whole challenge of inequality splitting our societies.

They probably ought to recast ballots until the desired outcome. You can't let people make the wrong choice.

> I think that the swiss government should focus on p unishing salary-dumping because that's what most people are afraid of when they think of foreigners: he's going to do my job for less money. I heard it's a big problem in Tessin.

How exactly would you "punish" this (or otherwise prevent it)? I mean, it happens due to market dynamics, so it's either salary dumping, no free movement of people, or no capitalism!

You raise a good point. Maybe with a minimum wage but the swiss voted against it. I honestly have no other idea.

Context https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum...

Probably the right thing to do is to follow the direction carved by what the majority of the people voted for, so everyone can feel the consequences of indiscriminated democracy. People that can't understand basic arithmetic, economic, text comprehension, simple political concepts, that have right to vote should live with the consequences of their choice. Probably they will be enchanted again by the next "piper" saying again that it's all because of black people/immigrants fault that they lost their jobs. That's OK in democracy. For this reason when I see this kind of democracy I tend to change country and live much better than before, while the geniuses that voted for their own sorrow are thoroughly experiencing it.

How do you change country?

Not everyone has the means to change country

Not without the freedom of movement anyway.

That seems unnecessarily harsh. Cooling off periods and the ability to rethink things benefit most people.

Not everyone votes on economics. Why must that be the "intelligent choice"?

s/strangers/foreigners

Thanks, English is my second language and I had a brain fart

Reply on news.ycombinator.com