Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST WEEKEND, Swiss voters approved a referendum reinstating quotas for immigrants, including those coming from EU countries – in violation of its agreements with the EU. The narrow vote, at just over 50 per cent in favour, overturns the bilateral agreement between Switzerland and the EU allowing for Swiss nationals to work in the EU and vice versa.
Switzerland has always had a half-in, half-out approach to the EU. It has rejected joining the EU outright in 1992, in an identically razor thin 50.3 per cent to 49.7 per cent vote. However, given that the country is almost entirely surrounded by EU states, it has clearly opted for some additional integration into the EU. Having adopted free movement of people, it has also voted to join the Schengen zone, effectively dismantling the borders between Switzerland and the rest of Europe.
The Swiss model of Europe a la carte has been embraced by some Eurosceptics, particularly in the UK, as a way of maintaining economic links to the EU, while retaining as many social and judicial powers as possible. The UK has been pushing for changes to the EU treaties allowing the repatriation of powers to London in advance of a referendum on EU membership.
Immigration has long been at the heart of the UK’s complaints in the EU. Along with Ireland, the UK did not put on any restrictions on migrants from the new accession states in Central and Eastern Europe in 2004, and received many immigrants from those countries. However, the current UK government is not pleased with the levels of immigration and Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary, has even suggested a cap on EU migrants, which would be in violation of its agreements.
The Alpine nation has more than just immigrant concerns in common with Blighty. Both counties have kept the EU at arm’s length, staying away from the euro. They also have strong banking sectors, highly mobile capital deeply invested in the Common Market, and are (or have territories such as Jersey which are considered) tax havens. Both, therefore, want to keep business ties with the EU while loosening other parts of the EU contract. Several UK politicians have even cited Switzerland as an ideal model for the UK: all the economic ties, with none of the social or political ties and with their own passport designs as a bonus.
The problem with this idea is that it does not live up to the “Four Freedoms” that underpin the EU Common Market: freedom of movement for goods, services, capital, and people. Each freedom complements and underpins the others. Trade between the Northern EU members and the Club Med countries in the South is already heavily imbalanced, but trade barriers within the Common Market would slow growth for the entire EU. Likewise, as the economies Germany and elsewhere have proven stronger, young and under- or unemployed workers have been able to work in Germany, Austria or Switzerland, helping to marginally offset the staggeringly high levels of unemployment in Greece, Spain, and Portugal.
Likewise, those immigrants have often revitalised institutions in their host countries with lower birth rates and church attendance. Their labour adds value and tax revenue to their host economies while diminishing dole claims in their home countries. They often do work in schools or in ski resorts that would not displace local workers.
Without the freedom of movement for people, it is difficult if not impossible to maintain the same freedoms for capital, goods, or services. What is the point of German capital building a factory in Spain if the goods cannot be exported back to Germany? Without the freedom of movement for people, it would be harder for a German boss to be moved to that same factor to oversee operations. These freedoms are linked and the restriction of one should require the restriction of the others. Therefore the EU should immediately restrict Swiss access to the Common Market entirely, curtailing the other Freedoms (for goods, services, and credit).
All eyes in the UK will look to the Swiss example to see what life outside the EU could look like. The UK has been equally vocal within the EU about curbing EU migrants and are currently mulling over an exit. But the UK would ideally like to keep full access to the EU Common Market, where it still accounts for more than half of all UK imports and exports. If the Swiss can remain in the Common Market while outside the EU and without the free movement of people, then there is little incentive for the UK to remain – it can have its cake and eat it too.
Conversely, if the EU forces Switzerland out of the Common Market, the UK should realise that it will likely find itself out of the Common Market (and it’s major export markets) if it chooses to leave the EU. The case of Switzerland, without the euro, outside the EU, and with migrant quotas will inevitably be quoted in the run up to the UK referendum. If it gets on fine and remains connected to the Common Market, most voters will think that the UK can get on fine outside the EU. If it sinks, it will be cited as a cautionary tale of nationalism overcoming common sense.
Therefore, almost perversely, the EU has every incentive to penalise Switzerland for ending this agreement. Switzerland is not an EU state. At 8 million people, it is much more susceptible to EU pressure. The loss of the UK, with its 64 million people, Europe’s most advanced military, and the continent’s financial centre, will be a much greater loss to the EU than relatively tiny Switzerland. The more unappealing the EU can make a Swiss exit from the Common Market, the greater and more apparent the warning will be for the UK in its own referendum.
It should also be a strong reminder to David Cameron and the UK business community that no matter how hard they campaign, referendums do not always turn out how they would like – and how easily it may be for the UK to fall out of the EU accidentally. The EU should show them what the damage will look like.
John O’Donnell is a recent MSc. International Politics student from Trinity College, Dublin. He lives in Dublin and focuses on US-EU relations.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Big companies trying to screw workers for all they can get! €711 million profit last year, yet they’re complaining they’re not competitive!!! Shareholder greed again!
Irish Cement Limited has extracted its profits over the past few decades by over charging its customers and keeping the price of cement in Ireland artificially inflated.
CRH (Irish Cement’s parent company) has been found guilty on numerous occasions throughout Europe of price fixing and operating illegal cartels all to the detriment of consumers and taxpayers. Most recently in Poland in 2009 when it was fined €25 million for the above offences.
After the cement cartel was uncovered in Germany in 2003 prices decreased by over 50%. Imagine how much local authorities have been over charged for cement related products throughout the Celtic Tiger. CRH claimed an annual turnover of €18 billion in 2011. How much of that belongs to the Irish people?
Irish Cement Limited can well afford to pay its workers!
Irish cement workers in Platin (meath) were always very well payed. Before the tiger days it was one of the best jobs in the area and even through the tiger days. Have to say that through the years I’ve had the misfortune of working for subbies in platin and found most of the workers to be arrogant AS**oles. They never wanted subbies in their canteen, would not even look in your general direction. Not as if they were being done out of work, subbies had to do any dirty work as this was beneath them.
In their old sister plant, premier periclase in Drogheda, If a contractor brought a machine in, say a JCB, then premiers union insisted on one of their men standing beside the machine (not doing any work) as long as it was on the premises, as it was deemed to be doing a man out of work.
I for one have no sympathy for any of the (so called) workers in Platin.
They might find out what it’s like to have to work for a subbie and have dickheads looking down their noses at you
That was a long long time ago tom. Your rant seems to stem from a hint of jealousy. How many times did you apply and not get in i wonder? Icl have already slashed their wage bill in recent years by redundancies and early retirements. . That 100 people is across 2 plants remember. Go back 2 years and the numbers were 3 times that. The monies owed are for bonuses which they are quite entitled to considering the bankers are still getting them and the banks DONT make profits of over 700 million euro a year.
@Karl, not Jealousy, More that I was surprised at the arrogance and ignorance of the majority of the employee’s.
It’s not a rant either it is fact that subcontractors are used for any “dirty work” as this is seen as below any general operatives duties in direct employment.
They lived in a bubble for years, Jobs for life and being basically unsackable made work place snobs out of sadly the majority of them.
Not sure where you are coming from, but having dealt with them at all levels for many years now, I am very familar with their ways
so tom because you were mistreated by men that have long since left that place the current relatively young workforce deserve everything they get? your holding a bitter grudge. and yes you were indirectly doing people out of a fulltime job and thats why they treated ye like that. but that was a long time ago. you have no idea what it is like to work in in recent years. the “so called platin workers” you are talking about are fighting for money they are owed. mark o brien makes a point in the comments below. you should read it. platin was a good job and always looked after the surrounding towns and clubs. but thats all stopped now because of greedy executives. your still coming across as being bitter that you never got a job there.
Lucky to be alive with you around,
You big girls blouse!
They are bloody lucky to have jobs
For God’s sake, lucky to have jobs they are not getting paid for! Mong
This kind of wage slave mentality, taken to its logical conclusion would mean that we, the great unwashed, should be grateful to even be payed for the work we do for our social betters.
It’s a moronic and self-defeating stance to take.
Yet again. “You’re lucky to have a job”. So do as you’re told and take whatever’s coming to you. Dickensian nonsense.
What I would like to know is how many government projects CRH got during the Celtic tiger years and how many T.D.s had investments and vested interest in that company. These large corporations will continue to abuse their employees in the name of profit until the Workers of the world unite and take them down. The elites continue to get rich at the expense of the regular joe. It’s only a matter of time before this game comes to an ugly end. People were kept docile and content for the last twenty years or so with the utopia of cheap credit. This is no longer the case. Now that reality has dawned the masses have become very agitated and are asking questions. I believe some equality needs to return to society as a whole, otherwise we are heading down a very dangerous road. The elites might not like what they find if they continue these policies. The French revolution comes to mind. Just because we are in 2012 doesn’t mean that history can’t repeat itself. When human beings have nothing else to loose they do strange things.
Richard Bruton, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation is a former employee and current shareholder of CRH. He has refused outright to initiate an investigation into the anti-competitive practices occurring in the cement and concrete industry even though they are costing the State and consumers millions upon millions of euro. Richard Bruton is a very good example of a politician with vested interests which are to detriment of those he is supposed to represent!
On aggregate I reckon they have a fairly concrete case, however many old companies work practices are set in their ways, curing these workers grievances with a bit of flexibility by CRH might crack the issue and cement better future working relationships.
With the Worldwide economic boom I think they have a good case.
The reason subbies were not allowed into irish cement workers facilities was because some subbies were stuffing toilet roll down the toilets and flushing them so they overflowed and p*ss and s*hit went all over the floor. In your comment you neglected to mention that subbies were built brand new canteen facilities showers and toilet block but they refused to use them because they were “too far away”
What are they owed the money for?
Work I’d say
There is no 9500 euro bonus for anyone up there anymore thats gone years ago. Workers have already taken a 20% pay cut while management have not taken any pay cut. Workers have not recieved their production based bonus and management have. Workers have been made redundant (approx 65% of them) while no managers lost jobs. When they laid off their workers they took on contractors to do the work they claimed they didnt have for the workers they laid off. Running costs for the factory have been slashed they are being payed irish cement up to €40 per tonne to burn rubbish in the kilns thus saving €25 million on importing coal. Workers who were laid off or took redundancy last year got paid their bonuses up to the point of being laid off so the precedent is set on paying this bonus to the workers for last year. People should understand there are two sides to every story sometimes three. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!!!!
This can get very messy… From the company’s point of view… If They don’t get pay cuts, then it’ll most likely be last in first out. Once they have it on the table that staff are costing “X” too much, then by hook or by crook that’s what’ll happen. Scary for those affected, but inevitable.
Regardless, If the labour court said the staff are owed money, that should be paid. Most likely a separate issue.
The key point here is that this is a profitable company looking for pay cuts. How can they possibly justify that? Another attempt to reduce the pay and conditions of workers in this country while shareholders (excluding those in the banks who got wiped when they were nationalised) the , bondholders and the high earners get rich off their backs.
The message from comments here seems to be this: unless workers are on subsistence wages, they should shut up and be grateful. Why do these people want to set back work conditions by a hundred years? Do they not realise such attitudes affect their own families, their children and their friends?
I’d be suspicious of these commenters’ motives. What’s in it for them?
have your say