well, Switzerland has signed an immigration agreement with the EU, that's one reason. I don't have the stats but I see lots of non-EU immigrants here. Geneva has a lot of Latin American immigrants, lots of Balkan immigrants. Certainly not negligible.

Yes, there are lots of Germans around but I guess they are finding jobs, which means they are needed here, right? And how will farmers find seasonal workers without people from the EU-8?

I don't think that Swiss marrying foreigners is an issue here.

Hmm.. Well I look at it differently: the number of immigrants from EU-8 living in and coming to CH is negligible comparing to those from old EU.

That's too easy. Swiss like to piss off of EU on which they depend so much.

This will not go away quietly. I for one have always supported non-EU restrictions. Somehow geniuses from Bern have not come-up with a way to do so.

yes, it's tough on the people who will be affected by this measure. I think this decision has more to do with political headlines has anything else. Yes, the % increase in the number of Polish people here is high but that it is because it is starting from such a low base.
People come here to find work, few immigrants can afford to stay here unless they manage to get a job.

It's not just you. I have noticed the same. Further confirms my impression that popular opinion on immigration is changing dramatically.

I replied to ProsperityJoy who was predicting additional restricitions for the "near future", but I don't see any quick changes.
However I agree with you that something will have to change one way or the other because the current level of immigration is simply unsustainable, but any changes will most certainly take a few years.

I think you have this the other way around.

Its the EU that likes to piss the Swiss off KNOWING that they depend on them so much. i.e. CH's largest trade partner is the EU. Thats a massive amount of leverage for the EU at the table.

- The EU doesnt negotiate with CH on many issues. The EU merely gives the terms and the Swiss decide to either accept them or not. When you are a 15trillion CHF/ 500mill pop powerhouse (EU) versus a 0.5trillion CHF 8 mill pop (CH) minnow - There is no reason to negotiate.

- Imagine being right in the middle of the EU with very low unemployment, positive trade surpluses, strong industrial sector, low taxes, highest salaries per GDP exc Luxembourg, lower debt, no crisis, a smaller pension crisis, no welfare state falling apart. That must have the Brussels elite in hissy fits - and it certainly must make it hard for them now to sell the utopia of the EU to their own people.

- Yes probably the EU will now cook something up in retaliation.

Well, yes. That is also a correct way of looking at it and I do usually support the way CH handles itself overall. With the EU-8 restriction it just got a bit personal though

To expect that Switzerland can cherry pick which citizens of the EU it will grant visas to and which not is rather silly - no other country including Switzerland would accept such a situation, so I don't see any reason why we should expect the EU to do so either!

Swiss businesses already have to deal with the CHF/Euro exchange issues and to now fire what could well be the opening shots in a trade war with the EU, is a rather silly thing to do, especially when it has no real impact on the problem.

Ohh. C'mon. EU should look into their own garden, as the old members EU-15 gave all the rights (to work without the need for a work permit) to EU-8, or EU-10, but NOT to EU-2.
C'mon. A bit of perspective here, they have nothing to protest for. Life sucks.

Why did EU-15 states cherry pick which of the EU-8 and later EU-2 states get free access to their labor market?

Discuss.

And somehow linked but not directly linked to quotas & from today's newspapers

"Germany is backing the demand of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to give nations of the Schengen borderless zone more independent means to close their national territory "as a last resort."
Only days ahead of France's first round of presidential elections, during which illegal immigration is a major issue, Berlin and Paris sent a joint letter to the European Union demanding the "nonnegotiable" right to re-establish national border controls for a month if need be."

The EU-2 are Romania and Bulgaria, right? I dare say reluctance to fully open borders with this countries is linked to their large Roma populations. That is a separate issue entirely however.

And discriminatory

What part of "labor market restrictions" do you fail to grasp?!

Daily Mail much? I dare say you have no clue. At all.
"Roma populations" you probably are referring to, groups which the same EU-15 found to be "discriminated against" in their countries, don't go to "West" to work (not in the "conventional" way at least ).., therefore they don't need, nor do they ever require work permits.. But that is a separate issue entirely however.

I understand that EU law allows people to move to a country and look for work there without having a permit beforehand. Anyway, this has little to do with the original point.

Your understanding is blatantly wrong - and has all to do with the original point since it is the thrust of your argument against the Swiss position.

I'm not aware of any country that is breaching EU law in this area. Can you offer any proof that my understanding is wrong? Perhaps your understanding is wrong.

No, they don't breach EU laws, as everything was agreed upon in advance, as much as everything was agreed upon between Switzerland and EU-8. Nothing to complain, although is frustrating and so on..
Hope favours will be returned, nothing more, nothing less.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=508&langId=en

- Switzerland has a right to impose quota restrictions on the EU 8 until 31st May 2014 - therefore your 'cherry picking' is irrelevant because that was the deal.

- Why are the restrictions relevant? Because thats how it was SOLD to the Swiss public by EUphilic parties so it would pass the referendum (oh with of course the typical threats if it didnt).

- Switzerland is well within its right to impose safeguard clauses. But as with many EU like things - agreements/decisions/referendums are meaningless i.e. Lisbon treaty.

- Malta and Cyrus, even though joining the EU at the same time as EU 8, had the same benefits as all old EU members from 2004 (hence the term EU 17). This was not the case for the EU 8 for which many countries had imposed restrictions. i.e. there were no transitionary periods for Cyprus or Malta (they were smaller countries). And this being the most important -> Malta could however impose safeguards against other countries if their market was flooded.

- On the EU 8 joining the EU in 2004- Sweden and Ireland were one of the few countries to impose zero restrictions.

- Romania and Bulgaria have transitional periods of up to 7 years. Thats not a CH rule, its EU, the Swiss make their own deals!! 10 countries this year decided to continue restrictions against Rom and Bul, even though both joined in 2007. 5 years is a transitionary period at which point the restrictions can be relaxed/continued etc.

- As long as the crisis continues and gets worse, Border and free movement of people debates will heat up more in the EU - regardless of CH or not.