NO ENTRY

When travelling across Europe by car, it does seem to be one large country. No borders and no checkpoints. Just signboards in different languages let you see that you are in another state. Switzerland has nonetheless run its boundaries but they are of a purely formal nature: those entering the Alpine Republic are not checked in any way and they are practically not halted. However how real is this unity and are there any bounds to the pan-European habitation under one roof? 

Voting at a recent nationwide referendum, the Swiss people supported the introduction of quotas for migrant labour from the EU. This is not the first time Switzerland has tried to adopt a law of this kind: the country's residents made several attempts to stop the inflow of guest workers between 1970 and 2000 but they never succeeded in winning a majority (48.9 per cent at the most). This time the "anti-migration law" was supported by 50.3 per cent of the voters with a record-high turnout of 56 per cent. 

Apropos, the referendum concerns residents of EU member states. It does not apply to nationals of third countries or refugees whose stay in the Alpine Republic is regulated by absolutely different laws. The matter is that migrants from other West-European countries account for a fairly high percentage. Thus for instance, residents of Poland or Lithuania in search of a better life go Germany, France or Italy. For their part, residents of France or Germany would not mind moving to Switzerland. Skilled specialists account for 69 per cent of them. Switzerland is certainly not going to give up foreign workforce altogether but it wants to have the right to regulate their numbers depending on their "own economic interests". No quotas have been set yet. Three years has been allowed to draw them up. 

Formally, Switzerland is not an EU member state but it adopted a treaty on free movement of people in 2002 which was included in the first package of bilateral treaties signed between the EU and Switzerland as a kind of alternative to the Alpine Republic's accession to the EU. Nonetheless, as early as in 2010, the Swiss voted for automatically deporting migrants having committed serious crimes. In 2011, Switzerland, which had earlier subscribed to the EU initiative to impose limits on quotas for labour migrants from Bulgaria and Romania, extended the limit till May 2014. In 2012, Switzerland also restricted the entry of migrant labour from some East-European countries actively supplying guest workers such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and others. 

Brussels and the rest of European states disliked that kind of popular lawmaking. The European Commission came up with a communiqu? saying that it was going to look into the current state of affairs and think what impact the situation could have on Swiss-EU relations. Restriction on access to Europe's internal market could be distinguished among measures already voiced. Other treaties of much importance to the Swiss economy may also be revised. It is above all the treaty on free trade zone between Switzerland and the EU. Of special importance to Bern is export to Germany, France, Italy, Austria and the UK: one should keep it in mind that the Alpine Republic's economy is closely tied to the outer world. 

"Free movement of persons is a central component of the European internal market," said Markus Kerber, director general of the Federation of German Industries. Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino has described the impact of the referendum in Switzerland on labour migration as "very worrying".

By the way, in 1970 when the Alpine Republic thought for the first time about limiting the influx of migrants, more than half migrants in Switzerland were Italians, of all others, who were in search of a better life in more well-to-do countries after World War II. 

So why did supporters of restrictions on the inflow of migrants fail to succeed before? One cannot say that the number of migrants in Switzerland has drastically grown: it increased only by 3 per cent between 2002 and 2010 and now they account only for 25 per cent of all residents. This is really a lot - only Qatar or Singapore have more migrants - but it is no news to Switzerland. The Alpine Republic is one of the world's most developed and rich countries and an important financial centre of the world. Such an advanced industrial economy - one of the most successful in the world - always needs comparatively cheap workforce. 

Still it has its own "buts", for instance, the country's rather small area and limited resources. The more industrial development there is in a country, the more migrants it needs and ultimately the process may become uncontrollable which is obviously the Swiss people's greatest concern. There is an increasing load on the natural landscape, utility system, transport infrastructure and the rents is on the rise. It is being pointed out that the population of the Alpine Republic may exceed 10m people by 2035 due to migrants alone and turn into all but the most densely populated country in Europe. Geneva and Zurich now steadily rank among the most expensive cities throughout the world. One can see this even by the price of a hotel room per night. For example, one and the same amount of money can provide you with a pretty good suite in a three- or four-star hotel in Strasbourg and just some dubious comfort in a hostel quite a way out of central Geneva. 

Moreover, Swiss natives cannot help feeling competition in wages (wage dumping) and decline in the size of social aid. This is especially tangible at the border: easy employment regulations and the actual absence of borders enables one to live for example in Italy or Germany and go to work in Switzerland. The factor of growing crime should also be mentioned. 

Yet it is even not the economics and wages that matters but the habitual lifestyle that people want to retain. It should be kept in mind that 59 per cent of Swiss people supported a ban on building minarets in 2009. Apart from this, in September 2012, residents of the Italian speaking canton of Ticino voted for a ban on wearing yashmaks, burkas or niqabs in public places. 

It is another matter whether the "anti-migrant" referendum in Switzerland is an example showing that the EU is drifting in a direction opposite to living in a common European home? The referendum was initiated by the right-wing conservative Swiss People's Party (SVP) and the people, as we can see, supported that proposal. Although not being EU members, the Swiss are obviously showing that they will not live at the bidding of supranational institutions. They prefer decisions taken on the basis on national referendums much like the Scottish and the Catalan peoples going to decide by referendum this year whether or not to remain part of the UK and Spain respectively. 

The SVP is certainly not the only political force in Switzerland and many others are just against introducing quotas. Those political forces are also supported by businessmen who basically benefit from having plenty of migrants in the country. Business elite representatives say that a shortage of personnel will be felt in some sectors without an inflow of fresh workforce. 

By the way, we can see the same things and hear the same arguments in Russia when the situation with migrant labour from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is discussed: most Russians are set against migrants. If citizens of the Russian Federation were offered the right to vote at a referendum, many would say "no" but the government has an opposite attitude and business also benefits from having cheap (or cheaper) workforce. 

It is also interesting that the EU is trying to put economic pressure on Switzerland. Now that the referendum is over, Brussels must have its say. Negotiations will be held to decide on the future of many bilateral treaties. But, after all, the "Against Mass Immigration" initiative has won support from citizens of Switzerland. The principle of direct democracy is in effect in the Alpine republic where everything is decided by nationwide referendum. More than 500 national plebiscites have been held in that country since 1848. Every law will be confirmed or rejected by a referendum and its decision will be binding upon the government. In addition, each canton has its own constitution and legislation. 

It should be recalled here that the UK had encroached even earlier on the right of free movement held sacred by European democratic institutions. In this way London is trying to fend off an influx of guests from Romania and Bulgaria which became EU member states in 2007 and for which the term of limitation on labour migration to other EU states has expired just this year. Life has become much harder for migrants from those countries: they cannot reckon on instant welfare payments, they have promptly to look for a job with a definite wage level, housing and pay some taxes. Brussels also made some noise about London but did not go beyond that. Apropos, British Prime Minister David Cameron has already expressed his support to Switzerland. 

There are no borders in united Europe. Their freedom of movement looks especially striking to residents of troubled regions such as South Caucasus with unsettled territorial conflicts and comparatively strict regulations for entering one state or another. Yet boundaries are still there. They go across each locality and each town. In prosperous and incredibly beautiful Geneva, the natives who are mostly stately and well-to-do people stand in stark contrast to migrants living in less comfortable districts of the city and not always having most prestigious jobs. It has been and perhaps will always be so. Still, to be honest, one would like Europe to remain an example of openness and cooperation.