Why Swiss voters rejected plan to limit jobs for EU citizens

Voters in Switzerland on Sunday defeated a nationalist party plan to limit the number of European Union citizens allowed to live and work in their country.

Peter Klaunzer/Keystone/AP
Laura Zimmermann, co-president of Operation Libero, in front of a poster that reads "No. No Switzerland is an island." in Bern, Switzerland. Swiss voters rejected a plan "for moderate immigration" on Sunday, Sept. 27, 2020.

Voters in Switzerland on Sunday strongly defeated a nationalist party’s proposal to limit the number of European Union citizens allowed to live and work in their country.

Swiss public broadcaster SRF reported that the measure was rejected by 61.7% of voters, with 38.3% in favor. All but four of the country’s 26 cantons, or states, likewise opposed the plan – proposed by the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) – to give preferential access to jobs, social protection and benefits to people from Switzerland over those from the 27-nation bloc that surrounds it.

The freedom-of-movement measure was being considered alongside nationwide votes on several other issues.

SRF reported that a majority of voters backed plans for paid paternity leave and for the purchase of up to 6 billion francs (about $6.5 billion) worth of new fighter planes by 2030. Voters rejected measures on the right to hunt wolves to keep their population down and on increasing tax breaks for child care.

The New York Times reported that under the new “paternity law, which is expected to apply beginning Jan. 1, biological fathers will be able to take the 10 days of leave within six months of the birth of a child. They will be entitled to receive 80 percent of their salary at a daily cap of 196 Swiss francs, or about $210, though companies can choose to extend the duration of the leave or increase the percentage of salary paid out.”

The government had warned that the plan to limit EU citizens could further strain the rich Alpine’s country’s deep and lucrative ties to the EU. It could also have triggered reciprocal disadvantages for millions of Swiss citizens if they want to live or work in the EU.

“Especially at this time, during the difficult economic situation caused by the corona crisis, good relations with our neighbors and with the EU are important,” Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter said, welcoming the outcome of the vote.

She said Switzerland would continue to pursue a “bilateral path” with the EU, eschewing membership of the bloc while seeking close economic ties with it.

In a nod to the misgivings many Swiss have about the country’s big neighbor, Keller-Sutter acknowledged that “freedom of movement doesn’t just have benefits.”

“The Federal Council only wants as much immigration as necessary,” she said. “That continues to be our goal.”

Roughly 1.4 million EU citizens live in the country of about 8.6 million, while around 500,000 Swiss live in EU countries. Some are dual citizens and wouldn’t have been affected by any restrictions.

In a similar referendum in 2014, the Swiss narrowly voted in favor of limiting EU citizens’ freedom to live and work in Switzerland. Lawmakers, however, refused to fully implement that referendum fearing a hefty impact on Swiss society and businesses, prompting the People’s Party to get the issue back on the ballot again this year.

Since the last vote, Switzerland has witnessed the turmoil that Britain’s 2016 referendum to leave the European Union has caused, especially for EU citizens in the U.K. and Britons living on the continent. Britain left the EU in January, but is in a transition period until the end of the year with prospects for a deal on future relations between London and Brussels still uncertain.

Voter Yann Grote in Geneva said he didn’t approve of further limiting freedom of movement.

“I’m not at all in favor, and even more now, because it’s not a time to isolate Switzerland,” he said.

Fellow voter Elisabeth Lopes agreed.

“I’m a daughter of immigrants, so it is a matter that touches me,” she said. “If Switzerland had to withdraw or reduce these agreements [with the EU], I think we would be the real losers.”

In Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the result of the referendum, calling it “a positive signal to continue to consolidate and deepen our relationship.”

She also urged Switzerland to approve a series of agreements negotiated between the country and the EU in 2018, but not yet ratified.

Sunday’s turnout was higher than in most recent referendums, almost 60% of voters going to the polls or casting their ballots by mail.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. Frank Jordans reported from Berlin. Raf Casert in Brussels contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.