The thing is, with this type of multi-sector operation, is that when all is going well, and the movement rate is low, it is quite probably possible to manage it safely.
Where I see it being particularly applicable is in the sort of environment the Swedes are using it; a shuttle service up the country stopping at two or three not-busy airports, and returning. The remote tower is "moved" up the country to cater for each arrival/departure. (The ATCO and the flight crew probably get to "know" each other quite well.)
This seems appropriate. Rather than staffing ~3 low-traffic units, one unit with one controller can man all three, barring exigencies such as a big increase in unexpected traffic. This is where reserve capacity needs to be available, realistically, and at short notice. (An extra work station or two, and staff to man them. This would, of course, partially negate some of the savings made. In fact, from what I've seen of software systems augmenting or replacing the human touch, it might even be more expensive.)
If something goes wrong (airborne emergency, diversions due weather, equipment outage/degradation etc) I could see a controller becoming very overloaded very quickly.
What would be the plan B for such a situation? Does anyone think the beancounters up near the top of the organization will have a good, workable plan?
There is an precendent for this sort of thing going wrong, unfortunately. IIRC the controller had his name leaked by the press and was subsequently murdered. Some of the managers of the organization he worked for received jail sentences in a subsequent investigation concerning the work practices.
OK, it was same-same but different, in that an area sector was combined with another area sector during light workload, but I could easily see something similar happening were one operator (controller) tasked to control more than one aerodrome at the same time.