The rich tremble too
This pic started circulating around the interwebz soon after the result of the Swiss referendum was known. It shows the Swiss national football team which finished first in their qualification group for the World Cup, and are being cited as one of the "hidden favorites" at the upcoming summer event in Brazil. The squad members are shown in their usual position for a team pic, lining up in a couple of rows. Except, only three of the players are shown. The remaining eight are just blank silhouettes with no faces. The caption says: "Switzerland's national football team without immigrants. Maybe they should rethink yesterday's vote?"
But football is far from being the only area where the sudden lack of foreign recruits would be severely felt if it were to happen hypothetically. The banks and the pharmaceutical companies, two of the pillars of the Swiss economy, are concerned that the February 9 result would make it difficult for them to find highly qualified employees from now on. Employer organizations and unions have joined the chorus, and they're concerned that the referendum will put exports and investments at risk, and rather lead to loss of jobs instead of defending the local workers.
But a slim majority of the Swiss have refused to listen to these arguments. 50.3% of them have said "Yes" to the Federal popular initiative "Against mass immigration" which was so vigorously pushed by the far-right Swiss People's Party (SVP). Thus, they've opposed the federal government in Berne, and the business circles and the EU bureaucrats in Brussels, who were all warning that limiting the right of free movement for foreigners would put this tiny Alpine country in isolation, it would harm its economy and disrupt its relations with its closest partners. Everyone loses from this referendum, except of course the populists all around Europe. And its effects will echo far beyond the Alpine peaks and valleys of these picturesque cantons.
The result of the Swiss vote was unexpected for many. Sure, there've been moods against immigration everywhere in Europe, and obviously here in Switzerland they managed to accumulate enough negative energy to tilt the vote - although the country is in a rather specific position both economically and socially in relation to the EU.
At first sight, it's hard to understand what's frightening the citizens of one of the most prosperous and successful countries so much, a place where the economy has been steadily growing by 2% annually, and unemployment is just 3%, by far the lowest in Europe. In a sense, Switzerland may've become a victim of its own success - on one side, its prosperity makes it an extremely attractive destination at a time when the crisis continues to torment all its neighbors; on the other side, its citizens are feeling confident enough to disregard all the warnings that some counter-productive decision of theirs could harm their prosperity. And so we've now come to a point where special quotas will have to be imposed for immigrants, which one commentator at Südostschweiz qualified as "almost inexplicable from a rational standpoint", still trying to explain it with "a mixture of self-aggrandizement and inferiority complexes".
Indeed, in the last few years the immigration to Switzerland has amounted to roughly 1% of its population. In 2013 for example, this country of 8 million welcomed 80,000 foreign newcomers. It's probably much more than was initially anticipated at the time when Berne agreed to apply the freedom-of-movement principle that's inherent to the EU. The majority of the Swiss have the feeling that they may be losing control on immigration. From their POV, the problem is not immigration itself, but its scope. That's why so many people have fallen for the argument of the quota advocates, who were insisting that the EU should understand that the country is in a state of emergency, and an "acceptable compromise" should be sought. What's more, being a sovereign country, a non-member of the EU, they argued, Switzerland has the right to request a review of the currently existing agreements with Brussels. In result, their side has prevailed by a narrow 30,000 vote margin, basing their campaign on the notion that the country was "bursting at the seams" from this unbearable influx of foreigners, who come here to "steal jobs", pump up renting rates, and put the health-care and education system under pressure - you know, the regular schtick one might expect in these cases.
This division has awoken memories of 1992 when Switzerland was again standing at a crucial decision, and it was again determined through a very slim margin. Back then, the country voted against entering the European Economic Area (which was considered a first step toward EU membership), and that vote drew a very distinct line between the pro-European, mostly Francophone cantons, and the regions where the dominating language is either German, or Italian, or Rätoromanisch. Now, once more, the latter have opposed the federal immigration policies and have defied the EU, although in fact the more urbanized and far more densely populated western cantons host the bulk of the immigrant population. So here we have a classic example of paranoia and populism pushing relatively unaffected communities toward a decision that bears much heavier consequences on others. But this is Switzerland, and here when the people speak at a referendum, their voice is the law.
Here's the break-up of this month's vote, btw. The pattern is clear:
( Clicky)
As understandable as they might be at an emotional level, the concerns that this small country is literally spilling over the top with foreigners and cannot possibly accept any more people from outside, is actually not supported by fact. Just on the contrary, in reality Switzerland is still in a dire need of a lot more talent and workforce, which obviously cannot come from anywhere else but outside. Nearly a quarter of the employees in the banking sector are foreigners, and for a reason. And one third of the medical staff in the hospitals. Famous Swiss companies like Nestlé, Novartis and Roche would be severely crippled if they're deprived of the ability to hire the best of the best and the smartest of the smartest in their domains.
The verdict of the Swiss voters is potentially threatening the country's image of a world-class business location as well. After all, who'd want to come and invest in a country that says, "only some of you are welcome here", and then puts selective, arbitrary quotas for foreigners? Moreover, what if you're a top expert in some field, you're about to be hired by a local company, but you're then being told you've got to arrive alone, and your family would "probably" be allowed to join you here in, say, two years' time? What the hell? Very few job applicants of high qualification who'd certainly have at least several other options to choose from, would ever even think of setting foot in such a place. I, myself, an Icelandic national, married to a Belgian national, wouldn't have moved to Geneva at all if that were the case. I'd have stayed in France instead. This is just complete bullshit.
It also looks suicidal that a small and open economy located in the middle of Europe would risk isolating itself from the rest of the continent that surrounds it in such a stupid way. For Switzerland, the united EU market is like a domestic market, there's virtually no line of separation between the two, they're completely integrated. That's where 56% of the Swiss export goes, and Switzerland is EU's number 4 trade partner, while the EU is the #1 partner for Switzerland (75% of the imports coming from the EU). What has happened now is a major blow on these relations, and it's definitely a reason for serious concerns. Not only will it not solve any problems, be they imaginary or real, but it'll create a dozen more.
Not surprisingly, the signals from Brussels didn't come late, and they're pretty clear. Switzerland may not be a EU member, but it has accepted a package deal with the EU, and there's no way it could selectively pick which parts of it should remain, and toss off the bits it doesn't like. As the EC vice president Viviane Reding warned, "We respect the democratic vote of the Swiss people. The four fundamental freedoms - free movement of people, goods, capital and services - are not separable. The single market is not a Swiss cheese. You cannot have a single market with holes in it.". And she does have a point. Like she said to Cameron after his populist dance with the nationalists regarding the immigrant quotas for Bulgarian and Romanian workers in the UK, "You cannot have your cake and eat it, Mr Cameron".
"Create security"... by keeping foreigners out?
At least in theory, the change of a single agreement out of several existing agreements between Berne and Brussels makes all other agreements invalid, due to the so called "guillotine clause". As the Swiss minister of justice Simonetta Sommaruga admitted, the referendum would lead to "a system change" in the country's relations with the EU with far-fetching consequences, and there are tough negotiations ahead, of whose outcome no one could be sure. Now both sides will have to do some damage control, because they do need each other. And though one side needs the other much more than the reverse, still, if the EU hits too hard, it'll hurt itself, too. There are 2-3 difficult years ahead, but hopes are that a mutually satisfactory solution would be found eventually. Neither side is prone to taking extreme actions, and that's at least some good news.
In fact the government in Berne does have three years at their disposal to transform the results of the referendum into concrete measures, at least as far as the immigrant quotas are concerned. The referendum does not specifically define what those limitations would have to be, and though it's unlikely, it's not impossible that Brussels and Berne could find a smart solution that would be acceptable to both sides, without necessarily violating the principles and the agreements they've made a commitment to.
For instance, on July 1, Switzerland will have to review its planned agreement for opening its labor market to the newest EU member, Croatia. It'll also have to decide whether the temporary limitations for workers from some particular EU member states should be removed at the end of May (those for Bulgaria and Romania could be extended to 2019, mind you). If, being pressured by the uncertainties after the referendum, Berne declines to do one of these two things, it's almost certain that the country would be excluded from such huge initiatives like the Erasmus students exchange, and the Horizon 2020 scientific program (with potential implications on the work of CERN), and many more. Some talks between Brussels and Berne were already frozen during the week, most of them concerning Switzerland's integration into the European energy market. So the real economic consequences could compel Berne to tread more carefully with the implementation of the decision from the referendum.
"Open the door for abuse? No!"
The thing is, the Swiss consider their form of direct democracy sacrosanct, because it gives them the right of a direct voice on many important issues, where their counterparts in most other places have no say. I suspect if the citizens of the EU member states were in their shoes, they'd have probably come to the same, or a similar result. And that's one of the reasons why what has happened here is probably causing quite some headache to Brussels, because it puts them in front of a dilemma with no easy solution.
The biggest concern is that just three months before the European Parliamentary election, this event could encourage various radical parties who've been rearing their head in many corners of the continent. There's no doubt that this referendum will be used by the populists to demonstrate a simple argument: In one of the wealthiest European countries, and one of the most open societies to foreigners, people have made a "clear choice" to put a halt to immigration. And they've been able to do it because they're not a EU member, see? Therefore! The EU should follow suit: give us "less Europe" and more sovereign decisions at a national level, tighter borders, and fewer immigrants. Basically, that's the argument that could be expected from them. So you see, the Swiss voters have provided the European populists with an opportunity to push their agenda forward with greater ease.
If Brussels responds too aggressively, it would only add more ammo to the far-right, and allow them to use the "told you so" argument. But if it responds too meekly, countries like UK could figure they'd get away with putting the free movement of people under question as well, and embolden them in their push for a change of the rules. David Cameron who's been blabbering about renegotiating his country's relations with the EU for quite a while, would certainly consider putting UK's further EU membership on a referendum ballot. So he must be keeping a close eye on what's happening up here in the snowy Alps. The same could be said about Germany and some other countries as well, by the way. Because there already are voices in favor of limiting what's being dubbed "social tourism", especially from fellow EU member states like Bulgaria and Romania (and now, potentially, Croatia). So why not look at some other national football teams, and scratch a few more faces off again, heh?