Swiss Review 5/2019

Swiss Review / September 2019 / No.5 20 Politics No other partner has contributed as much to prosperity in Switzerland as the EU. The EU also benefits greatly from Switzerland. We want a relationship with the EU that hurts neither Switzerland nor the EU. The bilateral agreements are non-negotiable in our view. Switzer- land’s voters have already approved them more than once. From enjoy- ing freedom of movement in Europe, to selling our good and services freely across the EU and sharing knowledge – the arrangement ben- efits us every day. The CVP has always advocated the bilateral path and blocked isolationist attacks. We consequently reject the SVP’s “termination” initiative aimed at torpedoing free movement. An end to free movement would have grave consequences for the econo- my, for research and for jobs in Switzerland. It would negate all other market-opening agreements (including our research agreement) with the EU. The bilateral approach means that we can enjoy tailored access to the EU Single Market without hav- ing to join the EU. It has brought jobs, growth and prosperity to Swit- zerland and enabled hundreds of thousands of us to live and work in the EU/EFTA. The conservative iso- lationists are jeopardising this suc- cess story with their “termination” initiative. Switzerland needs to be able to continue to rely on highly skilled workers from abroad in fu- ture. At the same time, the FDP takes the concerns of many Swiss on immigration seriously. We there- fore want to take firm action to combat abuses and other detrimen- tal situations such as benefit tour- ism, restrict the later admission of family dependants of immigrants from outside the EU, and resolve asylum-related issues. Not only do we want to keep the bi- lateral agreements, we also wish to continue improving them. From the outset, the GLP has been the only party committed to a framework agreement. Switzerland is part of Europe. As the pro-European party, we are committed to Switzerland having good relations with our neighbours from the EU. The bilateral agree- ments benefit the citizens of both Switzerland and the EU. We want this partnership to be strengthened, particularly with regard to educa- tion, research and environmental protection. However, good neigh- bours also play by the rules. A framework agreement with the EU is essential to further development of the bilateral agreements. A pro-European stance will never command majority backing in a popular vote if the accompanying measures on free movement are undermined. To ensure that the EU gives us better protection against wage dumping, Switzerland finally needs to make progress on provid- ing administrative assistance in relation to tax and taking action against tax dumping. The BDP is against Switzerland join- ing the EU. However, this does noth- ing to alter the fact that Switzer- land has close economic and social ties with the EU’s member states. The bilateral approach that we have taken is good for our country – and has been approved by voters more than once. Some of the treaties are good and some have been criticised. Others need revising. Nevertheless, it would be extremely dangerous to think that an unnecessary initiative to limit immigration would neither jeopardise this proven partnership with the EU nor compromise our prosperity. Controlling and managing immigra- tion is extremely important. Since the introduction of free movement, net immigration to Switzerland has totalled 1.1 million. The squeeze on wages and jobs is noticeable, par- ticularly in the case of the over-50s. We therefore want to restrict the right to immigration through our limitation initiative, while maintain- ing mutually beneficial trade rela- tions with the EU. Freedom of movement – the privi- lege of being able to live and work anywhere in Europe – is a wonderful thing and must be defended at all costs. European integration is the foundation of peace and prosperity on our continent, of which Switzer- land is part. However, free move- ment should not be about compa- nies recruiting as many people from abroad as possible. Instead, we must combat the shortage of skilled workers through massive investments in education. The pool of suitable employees will also in- crease if we make it easier for peo- ple to reconcile family and career as well as ensure that men and women finally receive equal pay. We must enhance labour market integration through additional measures to educate migrants and through extra protection for the over-50s. All of this is necessary to counter the inclination among com- panies to look exclusively abroad for talent. Overdevelopment is changing the face of Switzerland. Should more be done to protect the countryside, e.g. through stricter building regulations outside existing building zones? Switzerland’s relationship with the EU is of crucial importance for Swiss who live in EU countries. Is limiting immigration more important than maintaining Switzerland’s bilateral agreements with the EU? NO We are already engaged in combat- ing overdevelopment. In 2013, voters approved the revised Spatial Planning Act that is now being implemented at cantonal and mu- nicipal level. NO We must make better use of exist- ing built-up areas and be propor- tionate in our choice of building zones. The Spatial Planning Act ef- fectively combats overdevelopment and encourages inward develop- ment. YES We need to stop the drip-drip effect of building exceptions outside existing building zones. YES The GLP is in favour of reforms. YES Construction activity outside build- ing zones is eating up the valuable cropland and semi-natural habitats that help to preserve biodiversity. NO The people decisively rejected stricter regulations by voting “No” to the Urban Sprawl Initiative. To protect our countryside more effec- tively, we need to curb excessive immigration. YES Building stock outside building zones should not be allowed to in- crease. We should only authorise new builds that are needed for agri- culture, and restrict the available options for converting properties. Bürgerlicher Fortschritt