Good intentions? Open hearted?
Or looking for cheap labor?
(I'm actually asking, no clue about Swiss culture)
Good intentions? Open hearted?
Or looking for cheap labor?
(I'm actually asking, no clue about Swiss culture)
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/SwissSheepL_468x...
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2009/02...
In 2009, they passed a referrendum to ban the construction of new mosques with minarets, accompanied by even scarier posters:
https://www.ithaca.edu/depts/i/SVP,_Stop._Consider_a_Minaret...
So to an outsider, this result is a pleasant surprise.
Any swiss people reading: does the phrase "black sheep" have the same meaning in the various swiss languages as it does in english?
There were people from the far left wing that tried to establish that it was meant literally, which would then become racist. But that looked so far fetched that it wasn't part of the official strategy of the far left parties.
I literally do not see how you could look at this and not see racism. Is your concept of racism limited to overt statements of the form "People whose skin colours are different from mine are bad"?
I always asked myself how one can misinterpret such a widely used metaphor (except intentionally).
http://vincentarsenault.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/suisse-u... http://voixdexils.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/udc_ok2.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-44n7Zc5xJdM/TigsGejS9LI/AAAAAAAAAH...
In fairness to the UDP, they do also appear to have a poster design involving nice, happy, multi-racial Swiss people holding hands, but I bet the ones involving saying NON to scary dark foreign things (and there are a lot of designs that fit this pattern which don't involve sheep metaphors) appear on more billboards.
When even the Daily Mail - the most-widely read source of anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK - observes that your campaigns look like they might be jumping on popular racist sentiment, they probably are http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480493/Proposed-Swis...
(BTW if it were meant literally it would be a poster concerning the aesthetics of animal husbandry. Presumably nobody was arguing this.)
Edit: seeing as the first poster is in french, I'd guess it means the same there too.
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.
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.
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.
One is a member, the other one is not.
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".
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)
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.
Frankly the proposal was very harsh and I think a lot of people saw through the other tactics it employed to garner favour. Switzerland is a cultural melting pot and a lot of people can relate negatively to the consequences of this proposal. I believe Cheap labour was not on many minds. This proposal seems to be the result of a very vocal minority and does not address real problems of a majority.
As for why I voted against it, good intentions. Keep in mind this is a single data point from a Swiss who has lived in Japan most of their lives.
We have a lot "emotionally votings" recently and it really starts to annoy me. I don't like how this anti everything is starting to grow.
edit: of course it's 100'000 and not 50'000, thank you thallian
Population growth in Switzerland is currently at 0.6%, so immigration can help supplement this.
Basically there's no good reason to limit immigration.
Specifically the immigration of people that are hostile to the local culture, and act out that hostility through various forms of aggression.
Citing immigrant population statistics is tried and proven way to cloud the issue. In the Netherlands for instance, the largest groups of immigrants are Germans. You don't really believe the immigration debate is about them, do you?
I'm guessing a fairly large part of the UK immigrant population is Western European. Those, plus migrant workers in science, technology and finance, kind of skew the stats.
Calling everybody who points out that there's also another group of immigrants who's net contribution isn't exactly positive "neo-fascists" is extremely counterproductive.
Amusingly, if the internet is to be believed, immigrant Germans have been somewhat of a cause for debate in Switzerland lately, e.g. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/the-changing-face-of-german-immi...
It doesnt say anything about the real cost of immigration.All I know is that the british people are getting less and less benefits per people,their healthcare system is being privatized and education is getting more and more expensive,without the "neo-fascists" in power. The ruling elite is doing everything so that more and more people want to vote for what you call "neo-fascists".
And frankly there is no "neo-fascists".It's the bogeyman the elite uses in order to scare off people and make sure they vote "the right way".Fortunatly less and less people are falling for that scam.
Huhwhat? The recent damage to the benefit and healthcare system and the huge increase in university fees both happened under the current Conservative government, not because of immigration but because of policy. Turns out the left-right axis is real, and the far right really is further to the right (e.g. UKIP's deputy leader recently said that he couldn't see the NHS surviving in its current form because it didn't have any free-market competition).
Seems the opposite for me. Nigel Farage did pretty well last election.
It's not this clean cut.
They used some interesting methodologies to come up with a figure of 5 billion net contribution from the immigrant population.
Taken alone this does not mean "more immigrants good" as it doesn't break down that group. What does it look like if we look specifically at skilled migration from outside of the EU on Tier 2 visas etc, compared to the figures for migration from within the EU (which requires nothing more than moving)? What about the refugee populations? Their economic impact is of very little concern - we take them because they are in need - but it might at least be interesting for the sake of comparison to know how it all works out.
There are also concerns in the UK that this didn't take into account the strains on infrastructure and transport. And that wage suppression is another effect of importing vast numbers of people. This in itself may be good for business but bad for people, and may have knock-on economic effects as those who already have the least spending power find it gets even smaller.
Just saying 'immigration contributed 5 billion quid last year' doesn't actually say a lot.
They are still scrambling to find a way to reconcile their obligations under their treaties with the EU and their obligations under that referendum. And noone has found a way, yet.