Like many, I was surprised by the result of the vote on limiting mass immigration. Of course, the free movement of people has very real effects on all of us and I have already spoken about it very often on this blog: pressure on employees, on their salaries, the race for profit at all costs, congestion of transport infrastructure, etc. Since the opening of the borders, all of our lives have changed, with increasing stress to bear in our professional lives, longer working days, followed by endless hours spent cooped up in our cars in the middle of traffic jams. The time spent at home with our families is getting shorter and shorter and even during these moments, in the evenings, on weekends, we are still disturbed by our smartphones. Yes, it's true, life has changed, and not necessarily for the better. At least not for the middle class, that's for sure.
I therefore understand those who voted in favour of this initiative, because contrary to what the guardians of European dogmas in Brussels claim, free movement does not only have positive effects for the population, even if from a strictly economic point of view it makes perfect sense. My desire to get out of the Rat Race, of break the chains, is also an individual response to the harmful effects of this freedom of movement. However, I am a liberal at heart and I have always considered state constraints to be harmful. Of course, free movement has perverse effects, but giving additional powers to the State (and therefore taking away from freedom of enterprise) is even worse. It is therefore a bad solution given to a real problem.
There have already been enough points of view exchanged between supporters and opponents of this initiative and I will not add another layer. On the other hand, there are two elements, which have not yet been noted and which concern me. The first relates to direct democracy, the second to federalism.
Direct democracy
Whether we are satisfied or disappointed by the result of this vote, we must admit one thing: the direct democracy that the Swiss people benefit from is a unique and fantastic gift. Any other people in the world would have to march, protest, strike, commit attacks or even launch a civil war to obtain such fundamental changes in the management of their country. In Switzerland, revolutions happen in silence, at the ballot box. Sometimes we even have the impression of not seeing anything coming, as is the case today.
Of course, the majority is not always right. This is what many people are saying at the moment, especially among the political and economic elites. This is what I am trying to convince myself of somewhere. But in December 1992, when the Swiss people refused to join the European Economic Area, all the people in favour of the vote had already thought the same thing, me first. And history has finally proven the majority right.
Everything is much more complex than it seems. Those who voted in favour of limiting mass immigration are not idiots who do not understand the scope of their actions. Swiss direct democracy has a long history and people vote according to their conscience, taking the time to inform themselves, discuss and reflect on the consequences of their choice. The proof is that they are capable of saying no to additional holidays... Some elites in Brussels claim that letting the people express themselves on this subject is a mistake, because people do not have enough maturity, perspective and knowledge to do so. On the contrary, I think that citizens can make these kinds of decisions in a much more considered manner than European leaders who sit in their ivory towers. So, if we do not agree with the people, rather than criticising them, we would do better to reflect on the reasons that led them to vote that way.
Federalism
In addition to direct democracy, Switzerland is managed according to a federalist structure, with cantons that benefit from relatively significant autonomy. Many elected representatives in French-speaking Switzerland, opposed to the initiative on mass immigration, are currently protesting about this vote that will impose restrictions throughout the country and for all cantons, even though a good number of them were opposed to it. Some national councilors are calling for a separate application of the initiative based on the votes of the cantons. This could result in higher quotas being allocated to cantons that are in favor of immigration. Paradoxically, some regions that are in favor of the initiative are the first to call for generous quotas...
We can understand the point of view of elected officials who are demanding a separate application of the vote. How can we explain that an initiative launched by a single party and supported only by one part of the country applies to all cantons? This is a full-blown attack on Switzerland's federalist values.
But then, why did these same elected officials consider the result of the vote on the initiative to be completely normal? Weber or on the Land Use Planning Act? If we want to preserve federalism, we must do so not only when it suits us, but in all cases. It is sad to note that elected officials and the French-speaking media only take to the barricades when they are personally concerned...
Discover more from dividendes
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Français 
English 
Italiano 
Deutsch 
Español 
Português
Hello Jerome,
I really enjoyed your article and I would like to add 2 comments without taking sides either.
Jérôme recalled: Direct democracy:
Whether one is satisfied or disappointed by the result of this vote, one thing must be admitted: the direct democracy enjoyed by the Swiss people is a unique and fantastic gift –
According to Le Temps/Saturday Subscribers: In the countries around us, direct democracy would be good
It turns out that 61.8% of Germans, 69.7% of French and 77.5% of English would like to limit immigration. The question was posed as follows: Last Sunday, the Swiss voted and accepted a project against "mass immigration". The initiative aims to limit immigration quantitatively. If your country had to vote on such a project next weekend, would you accept it?
—————————-
When I happened to go to England, there were still 2 lines for passports:
Having two had certain advantages:
– European Union (therefore my French passport)..
– Other countries….With my Boss, of Swiss nationality, we landed with Swissair, after two or three planes of Pakistanis or Africans, it took half a day to see him emerge…..which put him in a charming mood throughout the stay….
Thank you Jérôme for this article…on which I would like to make 3 remarks:
1. I find the following sentence a little short in argumentation and do not really see the connection between the two: 'Since the opening of the borders, our lives have all changed...'. In any case, if our lives have changed, the link with the opening of the borders remains to be demonstrated in my opinion, not to mention that if it had to have changed, we would also have to examine the positive effects.
2. It is regrettable that despite all that there is to lose by playing this game, Switzerland voted in favour of limiting immigration. We are here on an island and whether it pleases us or not, we must deal with our neighbours. Switzerland has already pushed the envelope (in its favour) with bilateral agreements, and has found nothing better to do than to shoot itself in the foot. There is an aberrant lack of realism in the analysis of Switzerland's situation. Foreigners in Switzerland are productive, contribute to their wealth and that of the Swiss, for the vast majority.
3. An article in The Economist this week reminds us that Argentina, in 1914, was El Dorado. Anyone wanting to emigrate hesitated between California and Argentina: GDP larger than France, Germany and all the neighboring countries. In short, a success story. In 2014, after making one bad choice after another, let's look at where Argentina is. The authors of the article draw a parallel with Italy and Greece, a country can very quickly find itself in a difficult situation if you accumulate enough bad decisions (bad leaders being included in bad decisions...). Switzerland is far from that, but it is also the lack of will to face reality that sank (and handicaps) Argentina today. A word to the wise...
Armand, I would like to add:
1) Of course, not everything is linked to free movement, but the latter has undeniably had effects: congested motorways from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., particularly from routes coming from neighbouring countries and not necessarily designed for this, generalised pressure on employees, mass arrivals in companies, especially international ones, of workers, seconded staff, paid at rates that are sometimes more than questionable, and having a work culture that is sometimes less oriented towards social partnership. Yes, our lives have changed, at least those of a good number of employees, but as I said in my article, I was opposed to this initiative, because I also know that this free movement has allowed a good number of companies to grow and prosper, which has a positive impact on the entire economy of our country. And then, it is not a vulgar outdated law that will solve the aforementioned problems on its own. It is a much more complex subject.
2) Yes, not only are foreigners productive, but they are also necessary for many economic sectors and regions that need talent that cannot be found in Switzerland.
3) I totally agree. In fact, we are currently making a series of very bad choices for freedom of enterprise: Weber, regional planning and immigration. Some will also mention the Minder initiative… personally I consider it to be liberal since it gives power to shareholders 😉 Now all that remains is to hope that the minimum wages of CHF 4,000 do not go over the mark because that would be a real disaster for low value-added sectors and peripheral regions. Just to dream or have a nightmare: you are planning your retirement in the Valais Alps, but there are no more chalets available because of Weber and the LAT. So you fall back on hotels because you are lucky to have a lot of money. But there are no more service staff because of the immigration law and no more cleaning staff because of the minimum wage initiative. In fact there are no hotels at all, no chalets, no restaurants. There are no post offices either. There is nothing left, except wild animals. Weber is happy. Finally a real holiday.
Hello everyone ,
Wouldn't we be in the middle of Kondratieff's winter?
Jerome, As already written, I appreciated your intervention, but in your last post,
you echo one of the questionable arguments:
* Congested motorways from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., particularly from roads coming from neighbouring countries*
If the phenomenon is obvious, it has hidden explanations.
Because, unable to find accommodation due to the exorbitant rental prices in GENEVA, a good number of *Cross-border commuters have a Swiss passport, or have only kept one address in Geneva or in fact they
do not live * –
A President of a French Commune that I know well, despite the insistence of his Municipal Council, told me that he did not want us to count the CH plates that remain at night in his Commune, but the overall number of these *Cross-border commuters* would certainly surprise you.
I think that if this French President of the Commune is understanding, it is because he had exercised his active life as a cross-border worker... There are accommodations with the sky
But I never said otherwise… it was not an attack on French border workers. Just an observation of the joyful reality that prevails on the motorways for all commuters.
This news has traveled all the way here… to Quebec. Was there a real problem with this immigration? Is a shortage of quality jobs for the Swiss the cause of this vote… however close it may be?
There were problems, but not enough to make it a retrograde law. And there was no unemployment to justify it either.
By the way, welcome to the brotherhood of dividend bloggers, dear colleague 😉
We should still put the church back in the middle of the village (as we say here):
– The “yes” passed with 19,500 votes in advance. I live in a country of 1.5 billion inhabitants, so that makes me laugh!
– The big cities of Switzerland like Zurich, Geneva, Basel or Lausanne voted against, which shows that this vote is a vote of fear because the countryside, little affected
by unemployment and where there are fewer foreigners, voted massively for.
– I have looked at the various articles or documents, but this initiative is unclear in its application. Unfortunately, this is in my opinion the biggest flaw in our system of direct democracy: we make the average citizen vote on generally complex issues (such as the retirement system) and the resulting application is very vague (cf. lex Weber)
– I understand that this initiative somewhat irritates the EU and is a boon to right-thinking and left-leaning journalists, but I have personally observed a real “wage dumping” on qualified jobs since the free movement of people (some headhunters have half-admitted this to me, others have clearly confirmed it!). I imagine that this effect is also true for less qualified jobs. So there are negative effects for the average Swiss person like me. And let’s admit that traffic jams on the motorway, skyrocketing property prices and crowded trains are a side effect of Swiss economic growth, there is still a real problem with the free movement of people that affects a huge number of people in Switzerland.
– To put Switzerland and Europe in perspective: the countries of the New World have a very selective immigration policy and in emerging countries foreigners are “tolerated” but nothing more. This does not shock anyone and countries like Canada, the US or Australia are not critical for all that. It is of course very easy to criticize a small country like Switzerland with its 8 million inhabitants.
There you go, we have to see what this initiative will produce. Will it be another "non-event" like the initiative against the construction of minarets? (for the record: I had to reassure my Muslim colleagues and friends that this vote was of no importance, that it was useless, that the storm would die down a few weeks later, that the journalists would calm down, that nothing would change because no one wants to build minarets in Switzerland anyway... and time has proven me right).
Thank you Birdie for this cool-headed analysis, as I like them. You are right to point out that it was accepted by a very small majority and that its application is indeed vague and complex, just like Weber's was. Concerning dumping, I confirm that it is a reality, even if it does not affect all sectors and all regions. Finally, as you say, it is possible that it will become a non-event, a bit like minarets, all things considered... because there will still be a lot of work before that for the government so that all this junk becomes a bad memory.
But in fact, who decides in Switzerland when to trigger a referendum and on what subject?
It is most often a political party (in this case the UDC), sometimes associations (Helvetia Nostra and the Weber Foundation for the initiative of the same name)
OK thanks, that's what's important! the conditions for organizing a referendum and the choice of the subject, we have to tackle the problem at the root, by questioning any population at any time and on any subject we can quickly become very scared,,,,,; whatever happens, the Swiss system seems to me to be more courageous than ours by making more use of direct democracy and in certain cases it seems to me, by requiring unanimity for certain elected officials,,,, in France we are in denial whether it is for social or financial problems,,, we are all going to be Cypriotized in the end,,,, 😉
Good morning
In France, the subject is too sensitive. So we are moving forward bit by bit on this subject. Holding a referendum, even if it is democratic, could, depending on the results, set people against each other. Verbal tolerance is not necessarily reproduced in the ballot box and vice versa. It is a real source of division in French society.
Ludovic
What is more dangerous? (in France of course,,,,) to hold on to denial until the last extremity or to recognize (as in Switzerland,,,) the right of the people to decide their own future,,,
Only history will tell us which strategy is the best. Even if I do not agree with the "solutions" provided by this initiative, it must be admitted that Swiss direct democracy often makes the best choices. And when it makes the wrong ones, it learns and corrects its course.