Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 24 May 2012 - Strasbourg

6. Swiss quotas on the number of residence permits granted to nationals of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary (debate)

  President. – The next item is the oral question by Rafał Trzaskowski, Andreas Schwab, Simon Busuttil, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Elmar Brok, Csaba Őry, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Romana Jordan, Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein, Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz and Małgorzata Handzlik, on behalf of the PPE Group, Evelyne Gebhardt, Olga Sehnalová and Marek Siwiec, on behalf of the S&D Group, Jürgen Creutzmann, Robert Rochefort, Renate Weber, Marielle de Sarnez, Marian Harkin and Baroness Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the ALDE Group, Heide Rühle, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group and Adam Bielan, on behalf of the ECR Group (O-000113/2012 - B7-0115/2012), and

the oral question by Cornelia Ernst, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, to the Commission: Swiss quotas on the number of residence permits granted to nationals of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary (O-000115/2012 – B7-0116/2012).

  Rafał Trzaskowski, author. − Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank all my colleagues who supported this resolution for showing solidarity.

This resolution was prompted by the decision of the Swiss authorities to re-establish quantitative limitations on the long-term residence permits granted to the citizens of eight Member States from eastern and central Europe. We are of the opinion that such measures are discriminatory since, according to the Commission’s Legal Service, there is no basis for such a differentiation as the transitional period for the safeguards has run out.

We in this House have an allergic reaction to any attempt at differentiating between EU Member States, especially if it has no grounding in the legal framework underpinning our relationship. We differ on the interpretation of the safeguards with the Swiss authorities, but this situation actually points to the deficiency in our relations, as there is no legal guarantee that mutual legal obligations will be implemented in a uniform manner.

We are of the opinion that the labour force coming from the EU has contributed to the growth of the Swiss economy, and this is actually confirmed by Swiss farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises. If that is indeed the case, there is no justification for using the safeguards, regardless of the interpretation of the protocol.

Less me stress that we do not want to be paternalistic towards our Swiss partners. I was rapporteur on how Switzerland and the other EEA countries cope with the internal market. We have shown an enormous degree of understanding of the sensitivities of our partners in the Swiss Confederation and engaged in a very positive dialogue with our friends in the Swiss Parliament.

In the resolution we reiterate certain problems that we have in our relations as regards the provision of services, for example, not because we are upset, but because we are concerned about our relationship with Switzerland. Smooth, productive and predictable relations between the EU and Switzerland that are beneficial for both sides are of the utmost priority to us all.

  Evelyne Gebhardt, author. – (DE) Madam President, good levels of cooperation with the Member States of the European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) are very important to us. We enjoy a privileged relationship, which we wish to develop further in a highly positive way. However, this also means that both sides must adhere to existing agreements and, as the European Parliament and as Europeans, we must take care to ensure that no discrimination between the Member States of the European Union is allowed to creep in, whether in the interpretation of the wording of agreements, or in any other way. That is why I fail to understand the approach taken by the Swiss in applying the quota provisions that Switzerland is entitled to impose under the agreements. What we find unacceptable is that a distinction is made between Member States, in other words between the citizens of eight Member States of the European Union and the remaining States of the Union. This runs counter to the spirit of the European Union.

We are all equal and must all be treated equally. That is why we cannot accept a distinction in this case. The provisions of Article 10 of the 1999 Agreement relate to employed and self-employed persons from the European Community. This is stated clearly in the agreements and we must insist that all citizens of the European Community are dealt with equally.

This is the reason for our question to the European Commission regarding the status of discussions in this area with Switzerland. We would also ask you to clarify that we do not have first and second class citizens in the European Union and that the quota provision must apply to the European Community as a whole and that no distinction between citizens is permitted.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEXANDER ALVARO
Vice-President

  Sarah Ludford, author. − Mr President, I fully agree with the remarks of my colleagues from the EPP and S&D, as there is strong cross-party agreement on this matter. I, on behalf of ALDE, strongly regret that the Swiss authorities have decided to re-establish these quantitative restrictions – these quotas – on residence permits for nationals of the A8 Member States a year after the transitional restrictions expired.

I absolutely agree with Mr Trzaskowski that the decision to target these quotas only at eight Member States is discriminatory, and therefore unlawful. There is absolutely no legal basis, as Ms Gebhardt said, for any national differentiation in the existing treaties between Switzerland and the EU, and specifically in the 1999 agreement safeguard clause. I agree with Catherine Ashton’s statement that the quotas are in breach of the agreement on the free movement of persons.

There are approximately one million EU nationals in Switzerland among a total of nearly 1.8 million foreigners, but my understanding is that until last year the Swiss Government had only awarded 2 000 residence permits to nationals from the A8, so I really do not see how this is a massive problem. This is on top of the fact that it is illegal to differentiate. I am sure that Switzerland appreciates that the free movement of persons is of huge advantage to the Swiss economy, making a crucial contribution to the creation and preservation of jobs.

ALDE believes that this measure is neither economically justified by the labour market situation, nor by the number of EU citizens actually seeking residence in Switzerland. Mention has been made of the wider problems of free movement of service providers, implementation of the free market and burdens on SMEs, so I am afraid there is much to discuss with Switzerland.

  Tatjana Ždanoka, author. − Mr President, this is the second time during this Strasbourg session that we have asked why EU Member States are facing unequal treatment by third countries.

The first question, related to visa requirements, was addressed to Canada. The second, related to access to economic activity, we are putting today to our European neighbour, Switzerland, which has decided to re-establish quantitative limitations on the long-term residence permits granted to nationals of the eight EU Member States which joined the EU in 2004, including my own country, Latvia.

Our group deplores this decision taken by the Swiss authorities and demands solidarity with the Member States concerned. Are these two precedents of unequal treatment of nationals of different EU Member States an example of opportunism, or maybe a sign of a new trend? Maybe there is an underlying reason for such phenomena.

Therefore our question is addressed not only to the Swiss authorities, but first of all to ourselves. Are the EU’s own institutions and political leaders behaving in such a way that others cannot imagine introducing selective discriminatory treatment with respect to EU citizens? Maybe we ourselves are demonstrating a tendency for less solidarity and more national egoism.

In my opinion, the European Parliament must restart discussions on the enforcement of a common European citizenship. The status of the EU citizen must be more than simply a derivative of Member States’ citizenship. Such a status may be a safeguard against the different treatment of possessors of European citizenship by third countries.

We know that 2013 will be the year of EU citizens – or EU citizenship – and there is a danger that the whole issue will be confined to particular problems. In my opinion, this will be the proper time to start promoting this kind of status of EU citizenship, which will grant equal treatment of EU citizens by Switzerland, Canada and any other country.

  Adam Bielan, author. – (PL) Mr President, the agreement on the free movement of persons between the European Union and Switzerland was intended to guarantee openness and economic exchange. Although Switzerland remained outside the EU, it was provided with an excellent opportunity to cooperate with all the Member States. When concluding this agreement, both parties were guided by common national interests and the good of the citizens, and the Swiss authorities were fully aware that the EU would undergo further enlargements, and that the agreement did not allow any kind of distinction to be made between the EU’s citizens. The fact that restrictions have been introduced on the number of permanent residence permits for citizens of the eight youngest members of the EU is all the more surprising because no concerns have been voiced in recent years. Indeed the authorities in most cantons are opposed to the idea, arguing that the labour market is not under any threat from immigrants.

In my opinion, Switzerland has misinterpreted the provisions of the agreement and the protocol concluded eight years ago. The European Union signed them as a single entity, and so it should be treated as a single entity. This means that Switzerland cannot apply these arrangements to individual countries, but only to the EU as a whole, and it cannot therefore block work permits for citizens of selected Member States. In this connection, I am glad to see that the Commission has come down firmly in opposition to this decision. A number of questions have also been raised in connection with the reference made by the Federal Council in Bern to the protocol’s transitional provisions. The seven-year grace period for the new Member States ended a year ago, and Switzerland has not announced any intention to impose quotas since then.

In view of the fact that Brussels and Bern, and indeed Warsaw and Bern, have enjoyed excellent relations to date, and with a view to ensuring that these relations continue to move in the right direction, I would ask the representatives of the Swiss authorities to revise their position and to apply the agreement properly. I would call on the European institutions to take steps to resolve this problem, and I would ask all countries to support our motion for a resolution in today’s vote. Thank you.

  Cornelia Ernst, author. – (DE) Mr President, I believe that we are faced with a very sensitive issue when we come to talk about residence restrictions, particularly because this gives a push to right-wing populist and extremist forces. When we see the populist right-wing Swiss People’s Party successfully campaigning for a referendum on the issue of quotas for non-nationals, then we find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma.

There is something that I want to state clearly on behalf of our group: neither EU citizens nor anyone else should be allowed to become political footballs or the object of cheap right-wing propaganda as a result of so-called mass immigration, in this case involving Switzerland.

The problem is particularly difficult because it relates to European citizens. If we look at who obtains the largest number of residence permits, we find that over two-thirds are EU citizens. In April 2012, the Swiss authorities, in a hasty response, decided to introduce quotas for certain countries. If we take a closer look, we can see a contradiction here: if we consider the breakdown for residence permits as a whole, then we find that most are granted to Germans and Italians, not Czechs or Poles. The proportion of nationals from the eight countries in question is really relatively small and yet the 10 % rule is being invoked, something quite ridiculous in comparison with citizens of other countries. This again shows what happens when one deals with such questions in terms of percentages. You soon find yourself falling into a huge trap, as I would remind you.

It is politically dubious and counterproductive for Switzerland to invoke the agreement with the EU, referring to Article 10(4). We see this as a violation of the directive on the freedom of movement and the agreement with Switzerland and, above all, we consider it as discrimination against specific citizens and Member States. That must not be allowed to happen. We need equal treatment for all EU citizens, including in relation to Switzerland. We must be absolutely clear about this. For this reason, we refuse on principle to discuss quotas here, as they actually fan the flames of xenophobia.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the EU-Switzerland agreement on the free movement of persons is of fundamental importance to the European Union and for the more than one million EU citizens who live and/or work in Switzerland. It is also a highly beneficial agreement for the Swiss economy and one of the factors which has helped Switzerland overcome the world economic crisis relatively swiftly. Therefore, the decision taken by the Swiss authorities to re-establish quantitative limits for nationals of eight Member States is highly regrettable in the context of very close and very good relations between the European Union and Switzerland.

As Baroness Ashton said in her statement of 18 April 2012, this decision is neither legal, nor justified by the Swiss socio-economic situation. Legally speaking, until 31 May 2014, the provisions of Article 10(4) of the agreement are applicable without distinction to nationals of all the Member States except Bulgaria and Romania, which are subject to another regime. According to the information at our disposal, it seems that the requirements for the application of quantitative restrictions under Article 10(4) of the agreement were not met, as the number of residence permits that Switzerland issued to EU citizens in the past year would not have exceeded the average of the previous three years by more than 10%. The agreement as supplemented by the protocol of 2006 permits no differentiation on grounds of nationality, either for the establishment of ceilings or for the introduction of quotas.

Regrettably, there are hardly any legal tools that the European Union can use to reverse this measure. The only mechanism provided for by the agreement for the settlement of disputes is a joint committee of representatives of the parties. In the past, unfortunately, this mechanism has proved to be ineffective. Nonetheless, the EU will bring this issue up for discussion at the joint committee meeting on 27 June this year.

Beyond the lack of an effective mechanism for the settlement of disputes, this agreement also has other shortcomings. The first is its static nature: the agreement is based on the legal situation in the EU in 1999, when it was signed, and does not take into consideration either EU legal acts or European Court of Justice case-law after that date. There is provision for adaptation in the light of changing EU law only with regard to the coordination of social security systems and the recognition of professional qualifications.

It is particularly regrettable in this context that the agreement does not take account of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, and thus, that a different legal regime applies to free movement between the EU and Switzerland.

The second shortcoming is the lack of any mechanism for monitoring Switzerland’s compliance, by contrast to arrangements in the EU or, for example, the European Economic Area. In that context, I regret to inform the House that no concrete progress has been achieved on most of the issues identified by Parliament’s resolution of 7 September 2010, in spite of almost two years of discussions with Switzerland within the joint committee, and in technical talks. The only matter on which I can report some success is the incorporation into the agreement on the free movement of persons of Directive 2005/36 on the recognition of professional qualifications, although the relevant measures have yet to enter into force.

Finally, as regards these institutional issues in particular, following the visit to Brussels in March 2012 by the Swiss President and the Federal Councillor for Foreign Affairs, the Swiss Government launched a consultation domestically. It then announced that it would make concrete proposals on institutional matters to the European Union. The Commission will analyse these proposals and deliver an opinion on them once they have been communicated officially by Switzerland.

  Andreas Schwab, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of this morning’s debate and of the present resolution is to express our concerns, particularly those of the European Parliament, to our friends in Switzerland that cooperation between Switzerland and the European Union also involves obligations, both legal and political. The political obligations have already been mentioned. Commissioner, I am extremely grateful that you have mentioned the large number of legal obligations which it has not been possible to monitor satisfactorily in our relationship with Switzerland to date, as a Joint Parliamentary Committee is simply not up to this task because we have so many bilateral agreements involving so many mutual legal obligations. For this reason I would like to take your listing of all the difficulties involved in this situation as an opportunity to point out that the Commission is currently negotiating with Switzerland on a framework agreement that will, in principle, replace this Joint Parliamentary Committee with a real court that can actually make final judgments in legal questions as an impartial instance by mutual agreement, for example the Court of Justice of the European Union.

I believe that this must be an important message in the present debate, because there can be no doubt that discrimination against Members of the European Union cannot be accepted by anyone in this House, and we are therefore considering not only the freedom of movement of the citizens of these eight Member States, but also the freedom of movement of many economic operators in the European Union and Switzerland.

  Olga Sehnalová, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (CS) Mr President, an economic crisis, mounting unemployment and a sense of insecurity: this is an environment in which prejudice and finger-pointing flourish. The cry goes up for those who take people’s jobs, and the cry goes up for easy solutions. Websites that target citizens from Eastern and Central Europe are, unfortunately, the other side of the coin in relation to the topic under discussion today.

The residency quotas introduced by the Swiss Government since May on a selective basis against EU citizens from the eight new Member States are contrary to the fundamental European idea of free movement of persons and of workers. A differentiated approach based on nationality is, in my opinion, wholly unacceptable and wholly discriminatory as a matter of principle, not to mention the fact that employees from the new Member States account for only a tiny fraction of foreign workers in Switzerland. I therefore consider it essential to appeal to the Swiss Government to reconsider its decision and to scrap these discriminatory residency quotas.

I believe that rational arguments will ultimately prevail in the negotiations, and I would like to thank Baroness Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, for taking the first step in this direction.

  Jürgen Creutzmann, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Potočnik, cooperation between the European Union and Switzerland is something dear to my heart. That is why it is important to deal with these issues hampering cooperation. We have heard that the provisions for the granting of residence permits for eight European countries no longer correspond to the agreements. We regret this action on the part of the Swiss authorities, particularly in view of the fact that this is just one of many measures that threaten the transposition of bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the European Union; Mr Potočnik has outlined the problems already.

It is evident from this that, within the Joint Committee, the Commission still needs to deal with the still outstanding measures for the free provision of services in Switzerland and the implementation of an internal market. If we succeed in making progress here and in reaching an agreement between Switzerland and the European Union that sets down binding rules when it comes to points under dispute, then this can only be to everyone’s benefit.

The decision by the Swiss authorities is not just unwise in political terms, but also from an economic perspective. We know, for example, that there are many well-qualified young Polish citizens who would have had the opportunity to work in Switzerland in future and to contribute to prosperity there. I hope that Switzerland will revise this decision and withdraw it again.

  Marije Cornelissen, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Switzerland is a small white speck in the heart of Europe. Wherever you go as a Swiss national – east or west, north or south – you always reach the EU within a couple of hours. Obviously, Switzerland wants a good relationship with the EU: freedom of trade, travel and employment and, of course, the EU wants a good relationship with Switzerland.

That is why we have a treaty regulating such matters, but that treaty is clearly insufficient. Switzerland seems to be misusing one of its provisions in order to make a distinction between EU citizens who are welcome and EU citizens who are not welcome. That is discrimination, pure and simple, towards Central and Eastern Europeans, and that is simply unacceptable.

I hope that the Commission will find a way to give this short shrift. We do not accept distinctions being made between EU citizens. Every person in our Union is worth the same and has the same fundamental rights. That is the basis of everything and we need to defend it to the utmost.

  Tadeusz Cymański, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (PL) Mr President, the free movement of persons and equal treatment are some of the fundamental operating principles upon which the European Union is based. Switzerland’s introduction of restrictions on the number of permanent residence permits is a flagrant violation of these principles. We are loathe to believe that any harm is meant, but the facts speak for themselves. It is notable that this issue affects the European Union Member States which in the past experienced isolation and the yoke of Communism, and is thus a test of sorts, as to whether the two Europes have become one, and whether we are together or separate. I firmly believe that the European Parliament will provide the European Commission with a strong case to put forward in further work and actions in respect of our Swiss friends. We will not allow any confrontational language to be used, but we believe that this is a situation which should not be allowed, and we firmly believe that a solution will be found quickly, since such a situation should not be allowed in a free Europe.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) Mr President, I must admit that I am not satisfied with the Commission’s reply today. I am not happy with it because if I have understood correctly, the Commission is telling us, “Yes you are right in saying that the agreement has been breached; the problem is how to go about fixing it.” I do not think this is convincing enough. To my knowledge, we have a number of agreements with Switzerland in various sectors and we also have a safeguard clause with this same country. This guillotine clause stipulates that if Switzerland goes against any of its obligations in at least one of its agreements with us, then all the sectorial agreements that Switzerland has with the European Union will fall through. This is why I do not expect the Commission to stand before us today and tell us that it does not know how to solve this problem. I expect the Commission to come here and say, “We have a problem and I am going to do my utmost to ensure that the European Union does not let itself split from other countries and allow other countries to exploit this chasm.” The European Commission is obliged to defend all European Union countries, especially on an international level, when it is representing us with regard to third countries.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the quotas on the number of work and residence permits imposed by Switzerland on eight countries in Central and Eastern Europe are part of a whole series of discriminatory restrictions to which new Member States have been and continue to be subjected systematically. I do not agree with the Commission either. The Commission always takes a very general approach whenever there are discussions regarding discrimination against Eastern European states – such as visa reciprocity, access to the Schengen Area, discriminating sites and many more –, which I believe is wrong.

Concerning Switzerland, there is no legal ground for imposing these restrictions solely on certain European citizens, given that Article 10 of the Agreement referred to by the Swiss authorities concerns all EU citizens, irrespective of nationality. Moreover, this restriction is disproportionate and unjustified economically. We sympathise with all Member States that are being imposed restrictions of any kind, but I want to emphasise that the situation of Bulgarian and Romanian citizens is much more difficult. In Switzerland, they can be subject to residence and work restrictions until 2019, compared to 2014, the initial deadline. At the same time, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens still have limited access to employment in nine Member States, while Spain applies restrictions only on Romanian citizens.

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, the resolution adopted by Switzerland in April will result in a significant reduction in the number of residence permits granted each year. This will fall from 6 000 to 2 000 for citizens from eight EU Member States. As we are all aware, this type of quota has been abolished in the past. Reintroducing a quota therefore represents a major step in the wrong direction. It will result in systematic discrimination, which is not something that we in the EU welcome.

The truth is that Switzerland has had considerable benefits and seen significant growth as result of the 1 million or so EU citizens who live and work there. A country with just under 8 million citizens needs these people in order to grow and prosper. Now right-wing populist forces have been at work, and I regret the fact that the Swiss Government has given in to them. It is embarrassing and unpleasant that Switzerland has picked out eight of the EU’s Member States to discriminate against. The least we can ask for is that the Member States receive equal treatment.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, the decision of the Swiss authorities in April this year to introduce quantitative quotas on the number of permits for residence in Switzerland granted to nationals of eight EU countries breaches the agreements signed by Switzerland and the EU in order to exploit the common advantages of the single market. According to our legal service, the Swiss authorities have no legal basis for these measures, and the European Commission must therefore open negotiations with our Swiss partners concerning the breach of international agreements, in particular the Agreement on the free movement of persons of June 1999. I cannot believe that the Swiss authorities did not realise the possible consequences of their cavalier behaviour. After all, if the Swiss wanted to question its contractual basis with the European Union merely so that it could avoid meeting its legal obligations to the EU, it would also lose the benefits arising to it from its cooperation with the EU. Therefore I firmly believe that the Commission must emphatically remind its Swiss partner of its commitments and, of course, demand that this regulation be changed.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the European policy of open borders is increasingly turning into the free movement of criminals. The Netherlands, too, is facing problems with Central and Eastern European criminals. In Amsterdam, 90% of all suspects are not from the Netherlands, but from Poland, Romania, Lithuania and Bulgaria. I have asked the Commission to look at these figures, but it has refused to do so. Nevertheless, it is clear to everyone that open borders are causing problems.

Mr President, in 2004 the Commission was cheering as countries that were not ready to join the EU did so. The Commission and this Parliament, too, do not want to see any problems. Switzerland, on the other hand, is seeing a problem and taking action, and is an example to us all. Switzerland is sovereign, Switzerland has a stable currency, it is a country with little corruption and has shown, with its ban on minarets, that its democracy is working. The Swiss are still in a position to choose and Switzerland can still fight for the interests of its citizens.

I therefore call on the Commission to show respect towards Switzerland’s decision, to look at the figures from Amsterdam and to face head-on the problems of open borders.

  Csaba Őry (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, agreements must be honoured – this is an old basic principle from Roman law which to this day no one has called into question, and it applies even if the crisis has given rise to difficult and complicated situations and serious internal political disputes in several countries. We are experiencing this in our own countries as well, and yet we always urge each other to honour the agreements we have concluded, whether they are internal or external.

What happened here was not an accidental breach of agreement but was, it would seem, a quite deliberate deviation from an agreement. There are at least three points here that constitute a deliberate violation of the agreement.

There can be no discrimination between Member States, but here there is discrimination between Member States. As we know, the protection clause can be invoked in case of growth in excess of 10% above the average; this 10% must be calculated for 27 Member States, and not for eight or four or for whichever Member States we single out. Consequently, this is another breach of the agreement. The third breach of agreement is that the quota established should be higher than the last applicable quota, whereas here we are seeing the opposite, namely that the quota is set at two thousand persons, which is lower than the previous quota of three thousand.

This therefore suggests a significant degree of deliberate action. Fourthly, the introduction of these measures was not preceded by consultations. This is an aspect which casts doubt on the presence of goodwill, and I therefore agree with Mr Busuttil that we expect a firm and clear response from the European Commission, and that this Swiss measure, this breach of agreement, is unacceptable.

  Tanja Fajon (S&D). – (SL) Mr President, in my country, Slovenia, we deplore Switzerland’s decision. The measure is discriminatory and sad for a country that has a reputation as a country with democratic traditions.

The situation in the labour market and the number of migrants from the European Union do not justify this. It is embarrassing to read that the extreme right in Switzerland, in its campaign for a referendum against immigrants, has used a poster depicting black working boots trampling the Swiss flag. The action taken by the Swiss Government is in contrast to what Switzerland has agreed to. Freedom of movement is the main pillar for the construction of European integration.

All citizens of the European Union have equal rights. We cannot allow the intimidation of Europeans which we have witnessed in the Netherlands and Belgium, among other countries. We clearly have to condemn extreme populist and nationalist rhetoric and combat all forms of discrimination. Spreading hateful ideas is particularly dangerous in the midst of a financial, economic and social crisis.

I expect the Swiss Government to radically rethink its decision. And since I do not expect the European Commission will take decisive action, why not terminate internal markets agreements with Switzerland?

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, as we can see, the debate on introducing quotas for Swiss residence permits for citizens of certain EU Member States is a very lively one. I am glad to see that citizens of various countries are taking part in this debate – Members from the countries which were founding members of the European Union as well as those from countries which only joined the European Union at a later date. From right to left and from left to right, across all the parties which engage in heated disputes on a daily basis and have very different opinions, in this debate we are all agreed and we all wholeheartedly support the motion for a resolution tabled by Mr Trzaskowski and others. It has gained such wide support today because we are aware that the closer our cooperation and the more open we are with each other, the more we will achieve.

One of the characteristic features of the European Union is its ability to create ‘win-win’ situations. I have the feeling that Swiss citizens know this too. After all, they voted in favour of Schengen in the 2005 referendum, and in favour of the free movement of persons in 2009. Both these decisions had broad public backing. Why should an administrative decision now be allowed to push our friends, our acquaintances and the neighbouring country of Switzerland away from us, and stop us from enjoying a ‘win-win’ situation? Thank you.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, I am pleased that we are considering and discussing this case today in the European Parliament. The EU-Switzerland agreements do not provide for the possibility of dividing EU citizens into different categories according to the Member States they come from. This decision by Switzerland cannot be motivated by public pressure because in a referendum back in 2009 the Swiss themselves expressed their approval of the free movement of workers to and from the European Union (reciprocal movement). Recently in plenary we were angry about a website supported by Dutch politicians which discriminated against migrants from Central and Eastern Europe, who, apparently, take away jobs, but they were not just complaining about that, but about cars not being parked where they should be or about noise late in the evening. Such tendencies are very worrying whereby, during the economic downturn, attempts are being made to scapegoat those who are different. I nevertheless hope that the European Union and Switzerland will deal with these challenges together by means of normal dialogue.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, on 18 April, the Swiss Government announced that it had unilaterally decided to reintroduce immigration quotas for citizens of eight European Union countries, including my country – the Slovak Republic. Moreover, the government stated that it would review the programme before its expiry in April 2013 and consider extending it for a further year. By doing so, the Swiss Government is violating the bilateral agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the European Union in the changes in the 2004 Protocol. The move is discriminatory, and the prohibition of discrimination between EU citizens is also laid down in Article 21, Chapter 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The amendments to Switzerland’s immigration policy are justified neither economically nor in terms of the labour market situation or the number of migrants from the EU. A further negative aspect of the decision is that the affected countries were not informed of the measure in advance. Switzerland cannot unilaterally benefit from cooperation with the EU and yet prevent EU citizens from benefiting from the Swiss economy. I would like to thank colleagues from States that are not affected by this for their solidarity and support.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – Mr President, I would like to interject in my capacity as Chair of the European Parliament delegation with responsibility for Switzerland. Speaking in a personal capacity, I am concerned by this resolution, which seems to go beyond the issue of residence permits. The resolution was drafted without consultation with our delegation or, indeed, with the Swiss mission to the EU. Perhaps this is the norm, which I believe should be changed. We should have some input.

While I do not have sufficient time to address each aspect of the resolution, I understand that there are some issues which require clarification. I would sincerely hope that this resolution will not tarnish the good relationship between the EU and Switzerland, our fourth-largest trading partner. The next EU-Swiss inter-parliamentary meeting will take place in Berne on 16 July, at which we would hope to have a full and constructive discussion with our Swiss counterparts of the delegation on all aspects of the resolution, and I also understand that the issue will be raised in the Joint Committee of the Free Movement of Persons Agreement (FMPA) on 27 June.

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I have one proposal to make, although though I doubt that the Rules of Procedure give me the right to make it.

I would call on the rapporteurs to ask for the postponement of this vote today, in order to give the delegation mentioned by Mr Gallagher the time and opportunity to negotiate, and to convey our concerns to the Swiss authorities about the unfortunate decisions, of a discriminatory nature, which they have taken. If the delegation comes back without being able to convince our Swiss colleagues – in other words, if it is a complete failure – we can follow up with the tough resolution which has been debated today.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, Switzerland is a sovereign state and has had the sense to avoid becoming a member of the EU Soviet. I make no unfavourable judgment about the general populations of Eastern Europe; however, the differences in wage rates between the East and the West have had the effect of attracting large numbers from East to West, to the economic and social disruption of both.

Switzerland has a particularly high GDP per capita. Why? Possibly because it is outside the EU. In 2009, nearly a quarter of the Swiss population consisted of immigrants, and 31% had an immigrant background. How overwhelmed does Switzerland have to become before it is permitted to act? The EU is a playground bully and a control freak. Not content with bullying its own members into submission, it also wants to bully everybody else. All Member States and non-member states should stand up to the bullying and retake control over their own borders, regardless of treaty obligations.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I think it is right to start by saying that Switzerland is one of our partners and a sincere friend. We should never forget that and we should nurture the relationship. I have my own experience from international negotiations in an environmental area, where we have extremely good cooperation. They are also truly a globally respected partner.

But this is an important issue we are discussing today and it deserves a clear, united and straightforward approach and reaction. The Commission attaches great importance to the solution of the institutional issues which affect our relations with Switzerland and in several areas which are related to the internal market. As I have already mentioned, we will certainly open this issue in the joint committee in a few weeks.

The scarce and inefficient means of contesting the re-establishment of quotas, or the so-called flanking measures, and having them revoked show that such institutional issues are not only theoretical or a matter of principle but, on the contrary, they have very practical implications for the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and economic operators.

Just to give two short concrete clarifications on points mentioned by Members. The guillotine clause referred to by Mr Busuttil applies in the case of the termination of one of the agreements. So we have no intention of proposing the denunciation of the agreement. This would be even more detrimental for the European Union and also for our citizens. On the questions, even if we in the Commission bring into play any measure related to the existing agreements or the ongoing negotiations, this issue clearly underlines once more the inadequacy of our current agreement.

The Commission will keep this, as well as other issues, under consideration when examining whether it is opportune to start new negotiations or conclude ongoing ones. Also the Council, in its conclusions of December 2010 on the relations with EFTA countries, indicated that, ‘in assessing the balance of interests in concluding additional agreements, it will have in mind the need to ensure parallel progress in all areas of cooperation, including those areas which cause difficulties to EU companies and citizens’.

To conclude, yes, we have a problem and, yes, we are working on solving it. I would like to thank honourable Members for raising these questions. Of course the Commission counts on Parliament’s support in the forthcoming discussions with regard to Switzerland.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have a high opinion of your chairmanship and I know how important transparency is to you. I am baffled, however, by your approach to the catch-the-eye procedure. For example, I have been here since the start of the debates and I asked to take the floor as soon as the report was announced, however I was not allotted speaking time. Others were allowed to speak. Could you explain your approach, for the sake of transparency?

  President. − I would be happy to oblige, Mr Pirker. Firstly, perhaps you will have noticed that I did not preside over this debate from the outset. Accordingly I regret that I did not realise that you did indeed have the discipline to be here from the start. The Rules of Procedure themselves state that if we have a five-minute ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure, then five speakers are permitted. It is basically a matter for the President to decide how to handle this. I do not know the eight colleagues from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) (PPE) who requested the floor. I actually made what I thought was the fairest choice. I chose a woman so that there would be a balanced representation of the genders, because the other groups were all represented by men. I am not sure if my answer will satisfy you, but I have to follow some rationale in making a choice. With eight members of the PPE Group requesting the floor, I freely admit that my choice was not based on who had been here for how long. As I was not presiding at the start of the debate, but only took over the chair at a later stage, I was not aware of this. I can assure you, however, that I will take this into consideration the next time, particularly in your case. If a Member has had the discipline to attend a debate from start to finish, then he should be given the opportunity to speak. I apologise that this was not the case this time.

I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure⁽²⁾.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Swiss Government’s decision to introduce restrictions on the number of permanent residence permits issued to citizens of the eight Central and Eastern European countries is particularly worrying in the context of the discrimination suffered by citizens of this part of Europe, for example in the Netherlands. A groundless distinction has recently been made between citizens of ‘better’ and ‘worse’ European Union Member States, which could have very dangerous repercussions in future. The citizens of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary account for only a small percentage of the EU citizens permanently residing and working in Switzerland. It is therefore difficult to understand the Swiss Government’s decision, which was allegedly taken to protect the national labour market. What is also outrageous is that this decision appears to be illegal, since the agreement between Switzerland and the EU states that restrictions on access to the labour market may only be introduced for all EU citizens. Switzerland makes unlimited use of the rights it enjoys due to its membership in the European Economic Area. Swiss exports to the EU-10 amounted to over EUR 4 billion in 2010, which is equivalent to the value of the country’s exports to China. In view of this, we are entitled to demand reciprocity from Switzerland in our economic relations. We are calling on the European Commission to take urgent measures to clarify the current situation.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – I am Estonian. I am citizen of the EU. My country joined the European Union believing that it would be treated equally and would fully enjoy all of the same rights enjoyed by European citizens. Since the 2004 enlargement, the peoples of the ten post-communist countries have had to face several hurdles in their progress towards real equality – often accompanied by humiliations – such as: delays in opening up the job market, restrictive measures on business making, etc.

As a member of EFTA, Switzerland has signed the Free Movement of Persons Agreement, which guarantees all EU citizens equal rights on the Swiss labour and business market. Introducing restrictive measures and quotas for nationals of some EU member states has to be assessed as a discriminatory measure. Clearly, it cannot be derived from Article 10 of the 1999 agreement. Quotas should be established for all EU nationals or for no one; they are not supposed be used in a selective way based on nationality. There are some alarming trends in today's Europe: hate websites in the Netherlands and Belgium, and new Swiss laws which result in the practical marginalisation of citizens originating from post-communist EU Member States. I call on the Commission to unconditionally condemn such acts and, if necessary, to apply the necessary sanctions.

  Jacek Protasiewicz, (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Swiss Government’s decision to re-introduce quotas restricting the number of permanent residence permits in certain categories issued to citizens of the eight new EU Member States – the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Hungary – makes an unacceptable and unfair distinction between EU citizens on the basis of their nationality, which means that it is discriminatory and in conflict with European values and law. As was the case recently with the PVV Internet portal in the Netherlands, the European Parliament always takes a resolute stand against violations of the fundamental principles underpinning the EU, one of which is the ban on nationality-based discrimination. I therefore agree entirely with the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, who believes that this decision violates the agreement on the free movement of persons, which does not allow for any distinction to be made between EU citizens. The agreement allows Swiss citizens to move freely around the territory of the EU, but the same rights must also be guaranteed to all EU citizens on Swiss territory. Switzerland concluded an agreement with the EU and should now fulfil its obligations under this agreement. The Swiss Government can impose quotas if it believes them to be necessary, but the quotas must apply to all EU citizens without exception, since there are no first-class or second-class citizens in the EU, and all EU citizens should be treated the same.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I find it concerning that both today and over the space of the past few months we have repeatedly discussed an issue as fundamental as the freedom of movement and residence, not least because our debates have concerned highly-developed countries with a long tradition of democracy. Switzerland’s decision to impose temporary quotas on work permits for workers from selected EU Member States is quite simply a flagrant violation of the existing agreements between the EU and the Swiss Confederation. EU citizenship is enshrined in Article 9 TEU, and acts as a legal tie binding every natural person who holds citizenship of a Member State with the European Union. Citizens have both obligations and rights as a result, including the most important of all rights, that of the free movement of persons. European citizenship is also underpinned by the principle of equal treatment for individual citizens, regardless of their nationality. The resolution we are voting on today takes a constructive approach by opening up the subject for discussion and cooperation, and by setting out our opinion on the decision taken by the Swiss Confederation’s National Council. What is most important is for us to remember that the European Union was created for the good of its citizens. The freedom and liberty of these citizens should therefore be among the main points of focus for the work of the European Union’s institutions. As Members of the European Parliament, we are therefore obliged to make very clear our disapproval of attempts to introduce mechanisms which discriminate against citizens of the European Union.

(1) See Minutes

(2) See Minutes