Hacker News Reader

Comment by RivieraKid | Hacker News Reader

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

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.

Indeed. This could force Google to move its EU HQ to some other country.

They already bought the land for their massive new facility in London.

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.

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

You mean before they started getting 80k immigrants a year ?

EDIT: 80k / year represents ~1% of the actual population

If it was more than an informal agreement, then yes, except for that I don't see a problem.

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.

> 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-11e2-9454-00144feabd...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com