Follow Switzerland and Vote No to EU Migration, Billionaire Christoph Blocher Urges Britain

Colin Freeman, Telegraph (London), February 16, 2014

As the owner of a spectacular cliff-top castle, billionaire Christoph Blocher knows all about how previous generations of Swiss deterred unwanted visitors.

Yet six centuries on from the building of Schloss Rhäzüns, the towering mediaeval home where he lives in eastern Switzerland, his tactics for fending off foreign invaders have evolved somewhat.

Fed up with an “unacceptable” level of migration from the rest of Europe, Mr Blocher personally bankrolled last week’s referendum campaign in which the Swiss voted to end their freedom of labour arrangements with the European Union.

Put forward by the hard-Right Swiss People’s Party, for whom he is both chief treasurer and ideologue, the vote has paved the way for tough new quotas on foreign workers.

In the process, it has sent shock waves across Europe, with Mr Blocher hailed as a hero by British Euro-sceptics, and as a xenophobe by the European Union’s high command.

Indeed, judging by the anger in Brussels, where freedom of movement is seen as a core EU principle, the best place for him right now might be the dungeon in the east wing of his castle.

“The single market is not a Swiss cheese,” scolded Viviane Reding, the European Commission’s vice-president, who recently accused British politicians of pandering to extremists over opposition to Romanian and Bulgarian migrants. “You cannot have a single market with holes in it.”

Such scorn is a source of pride for Mr Blocher, 73, who describes himself as an admirer of Churchill and Thatcher, and who believes that David Cameron might now learn from Switzerland’s experience.

Just as Britain has struggled with its recent wave of immigration from Eastern Europe, he says, Switzerland ended up attracting far more foreign workers than it bargained for when it signed an EU free movement treaty in 1999.

“Our government said we wouldn’t get more than 8,000 people coming in and instead there was 84,000,” Mr Blocher told the Telegraph. “I believe you have had the same problem in the UK, in terms of inaccurate predictions. We had lost our independence and control on immigration, and we needed to get it back.

“The political class in every country in Europe may say its all fine, that it’s good for the economy, and they are right in the sense that the whole pie is bigger. But the slice that each person gets is smaller.”

Switzerland, which has never been part of the EU, is now braced for retaliatory measures from Mrs Reding and her commission colleagues, who have warned that countries cannot “cherry pick” their relationships with the bloc.

Since that is precisely what many in Britain would dearly like to do, the battle will be watched eagerly by Euro-sceptics in the UK and anti-EU parties across the continent, many of which hope that anger over the handling of the eurozone crash will generate big gains for them in May’s European elections.

“This is wonderful news for national sovereignty and freedom lovers throughout Europe,” said Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP. “A wise and strong Switzerland has stood up to the bullying and threats of the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels.”

That same vision of Switzerland as a small, plucky nation is one that Mr Blocher has deftly peddled in his political career, during which he has turned the SVP from an obscure conservative farmer’s movement into Switzerland’s’ biggest single political force. In the 2011 elections, it won 26 per cent of the vote, giving it seats in the country’s seven-member, power-sharing cabinet.

But by appealing to Swiss pride in resisting outside influence, be it the Habsburg empire or that of Napoleon, the SVP has also faced accusations of small-mindedness and racism.

Campaign material in 2011, for example, featured the SVP’s mascot, a white goat called Zottel, butting black sheep out of the country. And in 2009, the party was behind a hugely controversial referendum on whether to ban the building of mosque minarets, which was approved by a 57 per cent majority.

Last week’s vote on immigration, meanwhile, was bitterly opposed by many business leaders and the Swiss political establishment, who warned it would cause labour shortages and damage the country’s reputation.

Valentin Vogt, president of the Swiss Employers’ Association, said the vote would send a discouraging signal to business. “What is the point of investing in Switzerland when it is not certain you can get qualified staff to carry out your plans?” he asked.

However, in Switzerland’s decentralised system of government, where most decisions are taken by referendum, populist initiatives cannot simply be ignored by the political elite. And in the vote itself, the SVP benefited from a well-financed campaign, 50 per cent of the costs being paid from Mr Blocher’s pocket, which produced the tightest of majorities at 50.3 per cent.

Such direct “people power” is viewed with envy by Euro-sceptics in Britain, where David Cameron complained last year of being powerless under EU law to stop Bulgarian and Romanian jobseekers.

So who is exactly is Mr Blocher? Is he, as supporters claim, a modern-day version of the Swiss anti-Habsburg freedom fighter, William Tell? Or, as critics say, is he simply a wealthy meddler, inventing an immigration crisis that does not even exist?

Certainly, to the orthodox-minded Brussels bureaucrat, he is probably the closest any European politician comes to resembling a James Bond-style master villain.

As well as his castle domain, which is owned by the family plastics empire, he has a personal fortune estimated at £2 billion and his own private television channel, where he holds forth at length from an armchair.

In person, though, Blocher is at pains to portray himself as just an ordinary Swiss businessman, for whom politics is a national duty just as military service is. When the Telegraph met him last week, it was not at his castle but at a mid-priced spa hotel in the peaks of the Bernese Oberland region, where he was holidaying with his wife, Silvia.

Together they looked just like another well-heeled Swiss couple, although in the hotel lift, a German guest in a sauna robe congratulated him on the referendum, lamenting that Germany could not do the same.

“We are not an extremist party,” insisted Mr Blocher, sipping tea beneath a painting of two Alpine cows. “With regard to the adverts with the black sheep and the white sheep, it is not a reference to skin colour, but to the expression of a being a black sheep in the family. When we say we want the black sheep must go, we mean criminals, not people from Africa.”

Nonetheless, it is unlikely that any mainstream political party in Britain would use such adverts, and in any event, Swiss cities still have little ethnic minority presence compared to the likes of London or Paris. Of the country’s eight million population, there are roughly 180,000 Asians and Turks, 180,000 from Balkans, and 70,000 Africans.

True, roughly one in five people are from elsewhere in Europe, and in a country that is historically isolated, even wealthy British bankers or German IT professionals can be seen as outsiders. But if Swiss immigration concerns are less urgent than those of other European countries, Mr Blocher wants it to stay that way.

“We have no ghettoes and none of the extreme Right parties that exist elsewhere in Europe,” he said. “Why is that? Two reasons. We have avoided having immigrants in concentrations like in Paris, when the Africans, for example, are all in the same place in a way that makes things dangerous. And we also have direct democracy—if people are not satisfied, they have the possibility to change things.”

The question, now, though, is how severe the EU’s response will be.

Brussels views the free movement treaty as part of a package of seven agreements, covering areas such as technological cooperation, agricultural trade and transport. And as Jean Asselborn, the Luxembourg foreign minister, put it last week, such agreements stand or fall together. “You can’t have privileged access to the European internal market and on the other hand, dilute free circulation,” he warned.

For Mr Blocher, though, the EU needs the Swiss as much as the other way around. Switzerland, he points out, is the bloc’s third biggest trading partner, and the road tunnels through the Swiss Alps are the conduit for much of Europe’s north-south trade. A trade war, he hints, will benefit nobody.

Others believe that Brussels has no choice but to play it tough. Not least because Eurosceptics will be watching for any sign of weakness—especially in Britain, where Mr Cameron has promised a referendum on EU membership in 2017.

“The EU will be under pressure to remove some of Switzerland’s privileges, as otherwise Eurosceptics in other countries, principally Britain, will assume you can pick and choose which bits of the EU that suit you,” said Anand Menon, a Europe expert at London’s Chatham House think tank.

Another option—already being mooted in the Swiss liberal press—is a re-run of last Sunday’s vote, a scenario that has echoes of how the EU backed a re-run of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty vote in Ireland in an effort to secure the “right” result. Mr Blocher describes such a prospect as an insult to the “intelligence” of ordinary Swiss people, although he suspects Brussels will encourage it.

In the meantime, he looks forward to seeing Britain vote in a referendum on the EU—and he points out in the wake of Switzerland’s decision, the land of Churchill would not longer be “going it alone”.

“I would be happy to see the British leave the EU,” he smiled. “It would give us a partner on the outside.”

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Puggg

    A patriotic billionaire. Imagine that.

    I wish we had some of those.

    Outside of Ross Perot, I can’t think of any.

    • Oil Can Harry

      Meanwhile we’re stuck with billionaires like George Soros, Bill Gates, Mikey Bloomberg and Mark CockZuckerberg.

      • Homo_Occidentalis

        Our billionaires are all patriots. They have never once acted against Israel’s interests.

      • Marc Zuckurburg

        You rang?

    • Non-patriotic billionaires.

      www [dot] politico [dot] com/story/2014/02/paul-singer-republican-gop-fundraising-campaigns-donors-103600.html

      The money part of this article:

      A group of major GOP donors, led by New York billionaire Paul Singer, is quietly expanding its political footprint ahead of the midterm elections in an increasingly assertive effort to shape the direction of the Republican Party. The operation was launched discreetly last year, with the previously unreported formation of a club called the American Opportunity Alliance to bring together some of the richest pro-business GOP donors in the country, several of whom share Singer’s support for gay rights, immigration reform and the state of Israel.

      I respond:

      It’s about time someone stood up to the homophobic xenophobic anti-Israel/anti-Semitic opulent powerful money and political machine in this country. I’m glad the poor oppressed billionaires are finally starting to call out the malignant conspiracy that the broke and powerless and dispossessed are waging against them.

      Power to the (filthy rich) people!

  • Spartacus

    “Valentin Vogt, president of the Swiss Employers’ Association, said the vote would send a discouraging signal to business. ”


    F**k you and your business ! There is no legitimate economic system outside of National Socialism .

    • BonV.Vant

      Socialism, National or otherwise, in not a legitimate economic system. IT was NOT working in Germany and is the reason Germany started WWII. The Nazis only hope was to rape other countries of their wealth, their economy was in such dire straights they had to wage that war ten years earlier than they had originally planned.. I favor a free enterprise system only with much tighter, nationalistic rules, and a government that is either NOT democratic or one where only white males get to vote.

      • Spartacus

        Germany didn’t start WWII, Britain did .

        • IstvanIN

          Well, lets be fair, the Poles weren’t being very nice to ethnic Germans and Germany did invade Poland and then Britain declared war on Germany as did France. Germany did make numerous peace offerings to Britain, France was willing to go along but Britain was determined to destroy Germany, even if meant consigning Poland to 50 years of Soviet occupation and slavery. And Poland was their ally. The two worst countries to have as a friend: the UK and the US.

        • BonV.Vant

          That is ridiculous. Germany invaded Poland. Germany then invaded France. Yes, France and Britain declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland, but Germany was aware of this. Such pacts are not deterrents when they are kept secret.

          • Spartacus

            If France and England cared so much about Poland, they would’ve declared war on the Soviet Union, who invaded at the same time as Germany .

          • Strider73

            Quite true. Stalin and Hitler were allies up until June 1941.

          • curri

            They declared war on Germany despite the fact that they were in no position to help Poland. Which means that the Brits didn’t give a f*ck about Poland, they just wanted a pretext for war. The Poms were also indifferent to the fact that the Soviets invaded Poland from the east.

          • Long Live Dixie

            Germany invaded Poland.

            So did the Soviet Union. Why did the British and French not declare war on the Soviet Union?

      • Sue

        Spartacus is right. Listen to him. Britain declared war in WWI too. You need to read books that aren’t allied propaganda.

      • Romulus

        The most fundamental element to warfare is competition over resources. The Germans did not start white war 2. Wilsons 14 points and “British” bankers were instrumental in setting the stage.

      • I think this debate is pointless at this time.

        I’ll repeat my three different version of the same thing spiel again, because I’m sure there are a lot of new eyeballs reading these words since last I typed it.

        Easy Version: If we get race right, the economics will take care of themselves.

        Moderate Version: Any group of intelligent people secure in their own space will by trial and error find an economic and legal system to fit their needs.

        Long Version: Prosperity is mostly a function of three things: High average national IQ and requisite respect for education science and progress, ethnonationalism-ethnostate and group evolutionary strategy, and access to sufficient land and natural resources either within one’s own nation-state or by proxy. That’s 90% of the battle. Whatever model of legal and economic organization that is chosen is the final 10% icing on the cake, and is largely irrelevant IMHO. Sure, a good system can help, but it can’t help as much as any one of the three basic fundamentals. And sure again, a bad system can hurt, and be damaging, but not fatally so, for as long as the three fundamentals exist, recovery is always possible. But if you start taking away the fundamentals, then the system becomes all the more important, and if you take away too many fundamentals, the system won’t matter because not even the best system can improve on zero.

        We should stop yelling at each other about economic systems and legal systems and constitutions.

        • BonV.Vant

          IF I was able to choose between a national socialist government or the one we have now, and those were the ONLY choices, then I’d choose the national socialist government. Race, ethnicity, comes FIRST, all else should serve it. This does not mean though that the state needs to own everything. My god, we’ve seen what happened in every socialist country. Look at the latest example- Venezuela , which is turning into Cuba. The problem with socialism is it has a very short shelf life, and then what does one do?

          You leave one ingredient out of your equation for prosperity and that is freedom. There is no such thing as complete freedom though. A company that captured people and sold their body parts would break many laws, and rightly so. Our problem now is that what is outlawed and what is legal are totally screwed up. WE can have a free enterprise system with strict controls on the media and on trade with foreign nations. We used to have strict controls on trade before NAFTA.

          • I don’t view freedom as an abstract and universal concept. I view it as a derivative of other things, namely society, culture, race, ethnicity and history. That said, I think that there are multiple “freedoms.”

          • BonV.Vant

            your free to view it any way you want.

          • Pro_Whitey

            I am sympathetic to your preference for a market system and against nationalization, but I have to credit QD with some good insights. We will have thrown in our faces that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have had substantial socialism and also a good amount of prosperity. I now think, like QD, that those countries have at least in the past been populated by white Nordics with high intelligence, strong work ethics, and a strong ethic of personal responsibility and sobriety that minimize the burdens of a welfare state. In that context, socialism “works”, although it is more properly a form of national socialism, and will work for as long as those countries remain white and Nordic. As Muslim and African immigration increases the lesser populations in those countries, we will see the same possibility of collapse as in other socialist nations.

          • 1. Even the Scandinavian countries had to make changes and pull back a little bit on their massive welfare states even before they started letting non-whites flood in. But that goes back to my point — Systems can be fixed. Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, Danes, etc. figured out that their system was hurting them, and made the changes they thought they needed to make. But even after that, they still have just about the biggest welfare states in the white world. Because they’re high latitude close to the Arctic Circle countries. Notice in the American experience, before the Federal welfare state, the first states and localities to adopt a proto welfare state were northern latitudes, Minnesota, Wisconsin, both not so coincidentally have a lot of northern Germanic and Scandinavian heritage.

            But on the flip side, Scandinavians seem to have a severe and fatal blind spot for East Africans. Both Malmo and Minneapolis are full of Somalians.

            2. Don’t take my spiel above as an in se endorsement or refusal of any one system or another. What it should be interpreted as is avuncular advice not to beat each other up over economic systems, legal systems, constitutional systems, etc., because everyone reading these words gets race right. And we need to get race right before we can start really considering other things. The universe of healthy racially sane racially aware white people is not that big, so let’s not make it smaller.

        • bilderbuster

          You just described 1930s Germany.

      • bilderbuster

        Germany, who had no colonies raped the wealth of who? Poland?
        The British Empire was raping the wealth of most of the world.

    • NoMosqueHere

      Oh yeah. Hitler did wonders for Germany. The country was devastated and defeated and disgraced; and the national reputation of Germany is tarnished forever. I am a small businessman. So why don’t you national socialists go f**k yourselves.

      • Spartacus

        You could quite easily be a small businessman in Germany as well.And the fact that the NSDAP lost doesn’t discredit the system… That would be like saying that, just because you lost the Vietnam war, it’s proof that Communism is superior to Capitalism .

        • Long Live Dixie

          You could quite easily be a small businessman in Germany as well.

          I thought that was an especially weird comment by NoMosqueHere. What do they teach kids in schools these days? That Hitler sent small businessmen to Auschwitz? Lol!

          To NMH: Think what you will of National-Socialist Germany, but it is Hitler’s enemies – the victors in the war – who turned Europe into what it is today. The programme to de-Europeanise Europe started immediately after their victory in 1945. 1945 was the single greatest triumph of liberalism in Western history. Quit whining about National-Socialism. It has no influence in today’s world. You remind me of the blacks who always whine about slavery and “white supremacy”.

      • Long Live Dixie

        The country was devastated and defeated and disgraced; and the national reputation of Germany is tarnished forever.

        I’d say Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin had a lot more to do with that than Hitler did.

        If the British had listened to their own nationalists (for example, the BUF) and chosen to have loyalty to their Teutonic brethren instead of waging war against them (officially, to save distant Poland), then Europe would not be overrun today by non-Europeans, Leftism, or Islam. America would have been unable to gain a foothold in Europe and the USSR could have been defeated easily with British help.

        Churchill is especially to blame. That disgusting slob cared nothing about Britain. He only wanted to eliminate Germany as a competitor.

  • Geo1metric

    I am always amazed that these “Euro-weiners” pretend not to understand the simple statement, “Switzerland for the Swiss”, etc., etc..

  • Extropico

    The Swiss have a billionaire patriot who doesn’t want to deny his own countrymen the borders that he enjoys at home.

    • Ella

      A man’s house is a man’s castle, LOL.

  • Romulus

    7 ni66ers in Switzerland is TOO MANY, let alone 70,000, which will double and triple in the coming decades.
    Once these effing animals are in your lands, they will NEVER LEAVE!
    Be prepared to either call ni66ers and their black or mulatto spawn Swiss or have them and the effing muzzies removed by force, otherwise watch the composition of the land change just like it did from all of the near eastern Mediterranean passive invasions after the fall of Rome.

    • IstvanIN

      If they ever wise up they could just let them disappear in some glacier, to be lost for 10,000 years.

      • Romulus

        Just like OTZI’ the iceman sans 5 thousand yrs.

    • BonV.Vant

      I think the whole Oprah incident was enough to convince the swiss.

      • Romulus

        I surely hope so.

    • BonV.Vant

      One thing at a time. First we don’t let any more in. Next is we “control” the numbers that are already in.

      • bilderbuster

        They should become the number one Swiss export to Africa.

        • Brian

          Wind them up and watch them go…back to da Muddaland.

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      The barbarians responsible for the collapse of the Roman empire in the west were not like the 3rd world invaders of today. The ancient barbarians, such as the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Burgundians, the Vandals, the Franks, at least possessed the genetic potential for advanced scientific and technological development. Although it took a dark age lasting hundreds of years, these barbarians eventually mastered the art of civilization and became the founders of the modern world. On the other hand, the savages currently being allowed into western countries, such as the negroes, the Muslims etc. have very little or no capacity for civilization. When they take over the western democracies, there will be a dark age that will last forever. European civilization will vanish from the pages of history.

      • Romulus

        In my humble opinion, as a descendants of Gaelic and Southern alp Romans( I had my blood checked), I don’t fault the northern or western barbarians in the slightest.

        Rome, even being the epicenter of advanced civilization in their time, did visit much injustice to the so called barbarians.
        For that I owe them my allegiance. Granted, I can’t undo history, but I can give my undying fielty.

    • Ella

      Many Europeans idealize Blacks because they do not have the direct experience as Americans endured for years; plus, they think of the USA sport “heroes” who tend to be Black in both football and basketball.

  • David Ashton

    Switzerland already has a lot of foreign immigrants. It has managed a political system and a common identity that unites white compatriots of German, French and Italian languages, and does not need disruption. Of course, it is being set up as “Nazierland”.

    • Steve Sailer (?) had a recent column about the Swiss immigration vote. Since Swiss political power is decentralized, largely along German, French and Italian ethnic lines, the various Germans, French and Italian denizens of their own respective cantons, since they already hold ethnic power in their ethno-cantons, feel no need to flood Switzerland with their co-ethnics from nearby Germany, France and Italy for their own political power. Because they already have political power.

      This might be an idea the United States of America might have to look into, (or, more accurately, rediscover), as we become more “vibrant.”

      • David Ashton

        The “EU” has already started on considering sanctions against Switzerland.

        • Katherine McChesney

          Do you believe Britain will withdraw from the EU?

          • David Ashton

            Probably not. The process of negotiated withdrawl under existing agreed treaty rules is very complicated. What is needed most is the reconstruction of European fraternity by the arrival of nationalist MPs in the “EU” Parliament and their co-operation. If Scotland leaves the UK, England and Wales will be a new nation which technically does not belong to the EU, but I don’t think this will happen either. In any case, what I expect and what should happen are not the same.

  • BonV.Vant

    Once one country decides it won’t play this game, then there will be a mad rush to not be the last one in the game. It is the third worlders that are using the EU immigration policies to infiltrate countries. A creature from Cameroon can move to France and get French residency, then he is free by EU movement laws to move to any city in the Eu he wants to, except now he can not move to Switzerland. But one such person in Switzerland can still move to France. See, the last one out of this arrangement gets a huge number of third worlders.

  • curri

    ONE patriotic white billionaire in the entire world. Do they invite him to Davos?

  • curri

    Swedish-speaking ethnic Swedes in Ukraine want to settle in Sweden, but of course Sweden doesn’t want them:


    In 1781, 1,159 Swedish farmers from Dagö in today’s Estonia were displaced to Ukraine. Several years ago a few descendants of these — still Swedes — applied to take up residence in Sweden. But they were rejected immediately.

    A few years ago a Swedish family from Gammalsvenskby, Ukraine, applied for a permit in old age to be allowed to settle in Sweden. The family was descended from the Estonian-Swedish population in the village, which still speaks Swedish as their mother tongue.

    However, the Migration Board rejected their application, writes the journalist Kjell Albin Abrahamson in Länstidningen Östersund. He recently visited Ukraine and the Swedish village, where grinding poverty still prevails.

    “Maybe the Swedish villagers should have instead been illiterates from Somalia,” says Kjell Albin Abrahamson, which for someone in the leftish Swedish press is a very unusual reflection.

  • Long Live Dixie

    They only talk about European immigration. Why? Because they are white.

    You’re misunderstanding the situation. If Switzerland has open borders with the EU then that would mean a lot of Third Worlders who live in the EU would move to Switzerland. It does not mean just Poles or other eastern Europeans would move there, though that would be bad enough by itself.

  • scutum

    It is true that Germany did not start WWII. It was acutally started by Churchill who pushed for the alliance with the Polich Colonels who didn’t want to give up Danzig, a German city in East Prussia. Chruchill then pressured Rosevelt to support Britain in it’s war against Germany with lend lease supplies and volunteers for the RAF. Chruchill’s perifidy came home to roost after the war when Britain lost it’s empire. My own personal opinion as someone who is half Irish, is that Britain re-colonized the United States through the banking system when it supported the establishment of the Federal Reserve. It’s no coincidence that we went to war against Germany in 1917 when the whole country was against it. Remember, the majority of Americans back then were of German and Irish descent.

    • Katherine McChesney

      “Remember, the majority of Americans back then were of German and Irish descent.”

      Cite your sources. Because I don’t believe you. I believe the majority were Scots and English descendents.

      • Romulus

        The great wave of Irish immigration preceding white war1 was during the potato famine circa the 1840’s

    • David Ashton

      There were many interactive factors in the events of 1914 and 1939 and “Britain” was only one of them.

  • David Ashton

    And Turkey?

  • Romulus

    It is, of course, the “OTHER” Swedes that are responsible for that. Just like the shaitan, they have so many names.

  • Brian

    Thank God for this man– wish we had some of his sort. A billionaire who sees Europe as the homeland of the European peoples, not just a market.