Why the vote for limited immigration in Switzerland is a warning signal for Europe
It is not only a slap in the face for the Swiss government, but also for almost every second Swiss citizen who spoke out against the right-wing populist initiative of the Swiss People's Party (SVP) to "limit mass immigration". Many are embarrassed because a majority of Swiss people got caught in the cart of right-wing populists. And many are frustrated that on certain issues there is no counterpart to SVP.
Because the camp left-liberal thinker has failed. Even the business elite has failed to respond appropriately to the mood of the population. Major corporations such as Nestlé, Novartis or ABB have argued in advance of the vote that Switzerland needs immigration to secure economic growth. These companies need well-trained specialist staff from abroad, because there are not enough Swiss with appropriate training. But with this argument, they did not manage to fetch the population from their fears and win for their side. The economic arguments did not attract - instead of the ratio won emotions. With the yes to the limitation of the "mass immigration" Switzerland stands now in Europe in the pillory. At the institutional level, this means urgent sanctions from Brussels: the electricity, education and research agreements with Switzerland have been stopped.
Do foreign co-workers have to queue up or leave completely?
On the personal level, the vote above all means uncertainty. The foreign work colleagues, many of them Germans, wonder if and how long they can stay here. And what happens if they lose their jobs - do they have to back off or even leave the job quota for EU citizens? People talk about what it's like to sit in a café, by the lake or by train - knowing that you are not wanted. But questions also arise for many Swiss. Especially for those who understand their country as part of Europe, who are networked, value cultural diversity, perhaps would like to start a start-up in Berlin or study in Paris. How drastic the further consequences will be, one can at the moment only guess. Based on 120 contractual agreements, such as Switzerland and the EU have cultivated in recent years, the Swiss have taken the bilateral approach with the recent vote.
Laurina Waltersperger works as an economic editor at the Handelszeitung in Zurich.
© privateBut as much as the people and governments in Brussels, Berlin and Paris are indignant about the decision of their neighbor, so worrying is their approval in their own ranks. It is not just the right-wing populist currents in these countries that lend their support to the Swiss vote. There are also many individual European citizens who say, "If we could, we would choose the same way."
Not only many Swiss see the open borders as a danger. The example of Switzerland stands for a Europe-wide development. Rapid economic growth is not possible without the influx of foreign workers. Once it was the Italians on the construction, today it is predominantly highly qualified Germans, such as in industry and in the health sector. Many can not handle this growth because internationality mixes cultures and blurs the contours of different nationalities. The result is a heightened sense of tradition, the concern for one's own identity and the yearning for the "good old days".
On the other hand, more growth means more inequality. This inequality causes discomfort for many Europeans. For the politicians in Brussels, the free movement of persons is "non-negotiable", but many citizens want the old borders back. Therefore, all governments must act to take the wind out of the sails of right-wing populists in their countries. With less bureaucracy, more flexibility, greater responsiveness and the insight that a purely economic reasoning can not refute the fears of the population and the rhetoric of the populists. This is what the fatal decision in Switzerland teaches - it remains to be hoped that the EU countries will learn from it and make it better.
