Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 26 February 2014 - Strasbourg

6. EU-Switzerland relations (debate)

  Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zu den Beziehungen EU-Schweiz (2014/2596(RSP)).

Ich weise die Mitglieder darauf hin, dass es nach einer Absprache in der Konferenz der Präsidenten bei dieser Aussprache kein Catch-the-eye-Verfahren gibt und dass keine blauen Karten angenommen werden.

  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr[nbsp ]President, the outcome of the Swiss referendum on 9[nbsp ]February 2014 on the initiative ‘Against Mass Immigration’ has created a new situation. Following three popular votes in Switzerland in the past 20 years, in which the Swiss people approved free movement of persons with the EU and its respective Member States, the outcome of this latest referendum was not favourable to free movement. On this occasion, the Swiss people decided by a very small majority to change their constitution and re-introduce, within three years of the date of the referendum, quotas for residence and work permits for foreigners, including EU nationals.

After the adoption of the review, future cross-border workers, employed and self-employed persons, as well as their families, will be affected by these measures. Furthermore, the new article of the Swiss Constitution prohibits the conclusion of new agreements and obliges the Government to renegotiate international agreements which would be, or are, contrary to the new provisions.

The new provisions are clearly contrary to the EU-Switzerland agreement of 2002 on the free movement of persons. In order to comply with the new article of its Constitution, Switzerland will have to ask for a renegotiation of this agreement to allow for the reintroduction of quotas.

For us – for the European Union – the free movement of persons is one of the four pillars underlying the internal market. These four freedoms are indivisible. Switzerland has, over the past 20[nbsp ]years, sought to participate in an increasing number of areas of the EU’s internal market and has expressed the wish to open negotiations in further areas. In the light of this process, Switzerland cannot expect the EU simply to accommodate its vote against the free movement of persons.

There are further complications. The agreement on the free movement of persons is linked, through a ‘guillotine clause’, with six other important agreements with Switzerland, covering, inter[nbsp ]alia, land transport, air transport, trade in agricultural products and public procurement. If the agreement on the free movement of persons were to be terminated, the full package would fall. In addition, the agreement is indirectly linked to the association of Switzerland with the Schengen and Dublin acquis, and this issue would also have to be re-examined if the free movement of persons were restricted.

There is an additional issue in that the protocol extending the agreement on the free movement of persons to Croatia has not yet been signed, and it is difficult to see how Switzerland could sign it in the light of the referendum. While no official notification on the issue has yet been received from the Swiss Government, there are indications that the signing of the protocol can no longer be envisaged. The EU cannot accept discrimination between its Member States and will make every effort to avoid such a situation. The EU has linked Switzerland’s participation in the Union’s Erasmus+ and Horizon[nbsp ]2020 programmes to the participation of Croatia in the agreement on the free movement of persons. In the light of the referendum, and pending official notification by Switzerland regarding the signing of the protocol, the Commission has cancelled the next rounds of negotiations.

As Members are aware, the EU has sought since 2008 to put its overall relations with Switzerland on a new footing. The EU considers that the highly complex system of more than 120 sector-based agreements with Switzerland has reached its limits and needs, at least, to be complemented by an institutional framework.

This Parliament has supported that approach. In your resolution of 24[nbsp ]May 2012, you called for progress on finding solutions to pending institutional issues. In November 2013, following several years of exploratory talks, the Commission submitted to the Council a draft negotiating mandate on an institutional framework governing EU-Switzerland relations, which was agreed at technical level. The Council is now considering how to take that mandate forward so soon after the Swiss referendum.

The Council will closely follow further work in Switzerland regarding the implementation of the outcome of the referendum. Switzerland has informed us that it will submit an implementation plan, as a follow-up to the referendum, by June and will enact corresponding legislation by the end of the year. We will need time to examine the Swiss plans to implement the referendum, and to reflect on further steps on our side.

Let me conclude by summarising the situation. While we respect the decision taken by the Swiss people, our relations with Switzerland have been significantly tested by the outcome of the referendum of 9[nbsp ]February. We welcome the fact that Switzerland has confirmed, after the referendum, that it will respect its international obligations under the agreement concluded. The EU continues to attach high importance to its long-standing and close relations with Switzerland and stands ready to seek solutions to the current difficult situation. This will take time. However, we have to respect our own principles and we cannot encourage a pick-and-choose approach to European integration. The free movement of persons and workers must be defended as one of the European Union’s fundamental values.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me also say a few words on recent developments following the Swiss referendum held on 9[nbsp ]February. As you know, the Free Movement Agreement between the EU and Switzerland confers on EU citizens and their family members a right to move to Switzerland, to reside there and carry out an economic activity as an employed or self-employed person – and of course the corresponding right applies to Swiss nationals in the EU.

Around 450[nbsp ]000 Swiss citizens exercise their right to live and work in the European Union, nearly 1.2[nbsp ]million EU citizens live in Switzerland and more than 250[nbsp ]000 cross-border commuters arrive from the EU in Switzerland on a daily basis.

Switzerland is deeply interconnected with its neighbours in terms of infrastructure, culture and family links. The EU and Switzerland are bound by dozens of bilateral agreements which give Switzerland privileged access to the internal market and promote exchanges, both commercial and personal, with the EU. All of these were concluded based on mutual trust, interest and reciprocity.

However, the popular vote of 9[nbsp ]February now calls the freedom of movement of persons into question. The Swiss authorities told the Commission that they need time to reflect on how this could be implemented. The Swiss Federal Council has up to three years to implement the vote, so there is no immediate massive crisis. In the meantime, and I want to be very clear on this, both sides must continue to fulfil all their obligations under the existing agreements – ʻPacta sunt servanda’, as they say in Latin. A deal is a deal, and selective implementation or even cherry-picking is not an option.

The Commission stands ready to listen to the Swiss proposals which are now being considered and which we have not yet seen. The ball is in their court. Our margin of manoeuvre, however, is extremely limited. This core principle of the free movement of persons is a cornerstone of our relationship. It is a fundamental right. It is not simply ‘negotiable’, as some tend to believe. It is very difficult to imagine how immigration quotas and national preference could be made compatible with the agreement on the full free movement of persons we have with Switzerland.

Quotas are contrary to the principle of free movement and the principle of free movement is not only an essential part of the internal market, which cannot be decoupled from the other freedoms, but is also at the heart of our overall relations with Switzerland. A package is a package! One cannot have one’s cake and eat it at the same time.

There are, however, some direct consequences of the amendment to the Swiss constitution introduced by the vote. Following this constitutional change, the Swiss Federal Council has informed us that it is still evaluating whether it is in a position to sign the – already negotiated and initialled – Protocol extending the free movement of persons’ agreement to Croatia. The Commission has been crystal clear that we expect this extension as planned and that we cannot accept differences in the treatment of our Member States in this crucial field. The Swiss Government have indicated to us that they will have concluded their internal reflections on the Protocol by early April. We need to know this fast.

Precisely to avoid such discrimination, the Council’s negotiating directives for Swiss association and participation in Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+ clearly link these related agreements to the Croatia Protocol. Negotiations of these agreements will not go ahead therefore until Switzerland formally concludes the Protocol, black on white.

In the absence of an international agreement on determining the conditions for Switzerland’s association in Horizon 2020, Switzerland will not participate in this programme as an associated country. This means that for 2014, calls for proposals for the participation of Swiss entities will be in accordance with Horizon 2020 provisions governing the participation of third-country entities.

(Mr Borghezio interrupted Mr Andor waving a Swiss flag)

  Der Präsident. - Herr Kollege Borghezio! Ich verweise Sie aus dem Saal.

(Herr Borghezio schwenkt eine Flagge der Schweiz vor Kommissionmitglied Andor.)

Herr Borghezio, verlassen Sie bitte den Plenarsaal!

(Herr Borghezio wird von Saaldienern aus dem Saal geleitet.)

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I was just speaking about Erasmus+ which is about education, as you know. Switzerland has now missed the deadline for the 2014 grant award decisions. This means that in 2014 Switzerland will not participate in Erasmus+ on an equal footing with Member States as initially envisaged and its participation will be limited to cooperation activities, as with any other third country.

I want to make it very clear that this freeze on negotiations is not a punishment or sanction for the expression of the Swiss electorate, but a logical consequence of the choice Switzerland itself has made, a consequence which was very well-known before. Nobody can pretend to be surprised here.

Of course, nobody has an interest in breaking off dialogue, and we will continue to engage constructively in the hope that a solution can be found rapidly. But we have to take into account the changed circumstances and the non-conclusion of the Croatia Protocol. Business as usual is not an option here.

In the same vein, and I want to be equally clear, nobody on our side has an interest in terminating the Freedom of Movement of People Agreement and invoking the so-called guillotine clause linking the package of agreements concluded in 1999. Not even the proponents of the initiative are aiming at this. I therefore trust that the Swiss authorities will make serious and significant efforts to try and square the circle, and that we will be able to say in a year from now that relations with Switzerland are as close and friendly as they were before 9[nbsp ]February.

  Mairead McGuinness, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, we do not in this House question the result of the vote of the citizens of Switzerland, and nor do we question their right as citizens of a sovereign country to vote on matters of concern to them. But what we are doing this morning is analysing the consequences of their decision. The vote was clear, albeit tight: 50.3% of Swiss citizens voted to limit the movement of people into Switzerland, including citizens of the European Union. Support was strongest in regions to which there is very little movement of citizens, but nonetheless, this was the clear outcome of the referendum.

As has been mentioned, the cornerstone of our relationship with Switzerland dates back to a Free Trade Agreement in the 1970s. There have been other agreements in 1999 and again in 2004 – including the 2002 agreement where we dealt with the free movement of citizens. As I would say, rights come with responsibilities, and very clearly the Swiss people know what they expect from us when we sign these agreements, and we are very clear what we expect from our partners and our friends in Switzerland.

You could interpret the outcome of this vote by the Swiss people as a desire to end their agreements with the European Union. But it is clear that it is not the case, because the people of Switzerland voted on one element and one element only of their long-standing relationship and agreement with us – namely to restrict access to Switzerland for citizens, including citizens of the European Union. But freedom of movement of people is a fundamental part of our agreement with Switzerland and it is a fundamental principle of the European Union.

The Commission has stated, and many Commissioners have stated – including here this morning – that it is impossible to restrict free movement of people while expecting to retain and enjoy the benefits of free movement of goods, services and capital. The Swiss Government has acknowledged that there is now a systemic change in our relationship arising from the referendum outcome. It also acknowledges, as we do, that there is now a period of great uncertainty in Switzerland. I understand that some businesses are looking at relocating their business base out of Switzerland because of this uncertainty.

Our Swiss partners would like to pick and choose who to allow access to in terms of free movement of people, and there is talk of quotas. This is not possible. Quotas are the exact opposite of what we have agreed with our Swiss counterparts. There are three years in which this referendum outcome needs to be put in place, but already the Government has responded to the outcome by declining to sign the protocol with the European Union extending free movement to citizens of Croatia. It is that decision, or that inability to sign, that requires us to say we will cancel talks in relation to Erasmus and scientific research programmes. I believe that the MEPs from Croatia respect and want us to stand up for their rights.

I, for one, do not think that the Swiss people want to break our strong ties, but I do think that over the next three years we have to look clearly at the consequences. Agreements can be renegotiated, but they cannot be fundamentally altered. It is impossible to come to the table with an irrevocable position and expect partners to bend and yield. The people of Switzerland have spoken, but let the EU be clear that we expect full adherence to all our agreements, we defend the principle of free movement of people as a core and defining principle and we await clarity from our Swiss partners.

  Hannes Swoboda, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Das Schweizer Stimmvolk hat gesprochen, und wir müssen diese Entscheidung sicherlich zur Kenntnis nehmen und akzeptieren. Aber man muss schon sehr naiv sein oder sehr weit rechts stehen – wie unser Kollege hier – oder beides, um sich zu freuen, dass EU-Bürgern Arbeitsplätze weggenommen werden. Das ist auch eine generelle Geschichte. Ja, Ihnen ist das egal, uns ist das nicht egal, dass Arbeitsplätze weggenommen werden! Aber man muss eben sehr weit rechts stehen wie Sie, um das so zu akzeptieren!

Aber ich möchte schon darauf hinweisen und eine Schweizer Stimme zitieren. Ich zitiere die Züricher Zeitung, die sagt: „Am 9.[nbsp ]Februar 2014 ist nicht einfach nur ein Systemwechsel bei der Steuerung der Einwanderung beschlossen worden. Sondern der Souverän hat explizit auch Ja gesagt zu einer Infragestellung der Beziehungen zwischen der Schweiz und der Europäischen Union.“ Und da unterscheide ich mich von Frau McGuinness. Es ist eine Grundsatzentscheidung gewesen und nicht die erste Entscheidung, sich zurückzuziehen in ein Schneckenhaus. Denken wir an die Minarett-Entscheidung, denken wir an die sogenannte Ausschaffungsinitiative.

Und das ist schon etwas, was die Schweiz sich selbst überlegen muss: Will sie diese engen Beziehungen zur Europäischen Union beibehalten oder nicht? Und da ist das natürlich eine zentrale Frage. Denn wie auch die Schweizer relativ klar erkennen, klarer als viele unserer Kolleginnen und Kollegen, war es ein zentrales Element der Vereinbarung zwischen der Europäischen Union und der Schweiz und nicht irgendein Nebenelement, das hier weggestimmt worden ist.

Es ist natürlich auch zum Schaden der Schweiz, weil ja auch viele Schweizerinnen und Schweizer in der Europäischen Union arbeiten. Wir können und werden nicht akzeptieren, dass ein zentrales Element der Vereinbarung zwischen der Europäischen Union und der Schweiz hier aufgehoben worden ist.

Natürlich gab es auch in der Schweiz einige Elemente, die dazu geführt haben. Es ist ja bekannt, dass die schweizerischen Gewerkschaften z.[nbsp ]B. gerade an einer Mindestlohninitiative arbeiten. Was wir auf der europäischen Ebene diskutieren mit der Entsenderichtlinie, nämlich dass die Gefahr des Social Dumping besteht, das hat es sicherlich auch in der Schweiz gegeben. Auch wenn die Arbeitskräfte, die in die Schweiz gegangen sind, oft ein anderes Qualifikationsniveau gehabt haben, wo Social Dumping vielleicht nicht diese große Rolle gespielt hat. Das müssen wir anerkennen. Aber dennoch, glaube ich, können wir nicht zur Tagesordnung übergehen.

Um abzuschließen: Die Schweiz stellt sich heute als ein Land dar, das unser Geld will, auch unser Geld aus der Steuerflucht – wo die Banken mithelfen bei der Steuerflucht –, aber unsere Arbeitnehmer nicht akzeptieren will. Und das wollen wir nicht, das können wir nicht akzeptieren als Europäische Union!

  Pat the Cope Gallagher, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, as chairman of the parliamentary delegation with responsibility for Swiss relations, on behalf of my own Group, ALDE, I am also extremely disappointed by the recent referendum, but we must, of course, accept it as a democratic decision by the Swiss people. The decision that we are now facing is very complex, it is very difficult and there are a lot of sensitivities. Our colleague who was brandishing the Swiss national flag today was not helpful. I believe that we should not say anything which would inflame the situation.

The economies of the Union and Switzerland are deeply interlinked. More than 60% of Swiss exports go to the European Union, and in fact Switzerland’s trade with the neighbouring German state of Baden-Württemberg is higher than with the US. According to a recent study published by the Credit Suisse bank, introducing quotas means that 80 000 jobs may not be created in the future and that economic growth in Switzerland may be lowered over the next three years by almost 0.3%.

The EU should refrain from anything perceived as retaliation. We need to take into account the new legal situation and react accordingly. The Union should clearly communicate its red lines – and there are red lines. Most of us consider that the free movement of persons is a fundamental right guaranteed to EU citizens by the Treaties and that it should not be compromised.

Let me mention, just as a footnote, that Turkey and Israel are participating in the Horizon 2020 Programme, although these countries have no agreement covering free movement. I believe the discussion on the implementation of the vote in the different areas of EU-Swiss cooperation points again to the very fragmented nature of EU-Swiss relations and demonstrates the need for an agreement which would tackle the different issues in EU-Switzerland relations in a comprehensive manner. That is something which this House asked for in 2010. In conclusion, Mr President, I urge the Member States to adopt the EU mandate for negotiations...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, les choses sont simples. Les Suisses ont toute la liberté de voter comme ils l'entendent, mais ils ont toute la liberté d'être responsables de leurs votes. Les choses sont donc claires pour moi: toutes les négociations avec la Suisse sont interrompues et sont caduques, c'est-à-dire que nous sommes dans la situation d'avant les accords avec la Suisse.

C'est à la Suisse de trouver des solutions, ce n'est pas à l'Union européenne; c'est à la société suisse de trouver les solutions. C'est quand même fantastique, une semaine après le vote, tous les sondages en Suisse indiquent que plus de 60[nbsp ]% des Suisses auraient refusé l'initiative s'ils avaient compris les conséquences. Nous ne pouvons pas déresponsabiliser la Suisse. Nous devons reconnaître le vote des Suisses; nous devons leur dire: "Vous êtes grands, vous êtes forts, vous êtes autonomes, débrouillez-vous! C'est à vous de vous débrouiller et, si vous trouvez les solutions, vous revenez nous voir". Vous verrez que les Suisses reviendront à genoux parce qu'ils ont besoin de l'Europe, parce que 60[nbsp ]% des exportations suisses sont destinées à l'Union européenne, parce que la richesse de la Suisse dépend du marché européen. On ne peut pas avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre.

Même le Front national ne serait pas capable de trouver cette solution. Vous êtes des crétins, vous êtes des crétins finis parce que vous n'avez pas compris les valeurs de l'Europe. C'est pour cette raison, je le dis simplement, que l'Europe ne doit pas bouger. L'Europe a des accords et la Suisse les dénonce. C'est à la Suisse de trouver les solutions, et pas à l'Europe. Nous avons le temps; c'est la Suisse qui devra remettre ses montres à l'heure, voilà la situation.

  Der Präsident. - Herr Kollege Cohn-Bendit! Ich rufe Sie wegen Verwendung unparlamentarischer Ausdrücke zur Ordnung. Das Wort „Kretin“ und das Wort „Idiot“ sollte hier nicht zum Umgangston gehören.

  Vicky Ford, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, freedom of movement is a very important principle of the EU, and I am very proud to live in a part of Europe where many people want to come and live. But we also need to recognise that migration can put significant pressures on public services and listen to the local communities’ concerns. Immigration brings great benefits to our economy, and we all benefit from this sharing of knowledge. We need to listen carefully to both sides of the argument.

Switzerland is not in the EU. Its people are perfectly entitled to choose their own way of controlling their borders, but this is a complicated and sensitive subject and we need to be calm and considered in our response. Switzerland is not in the EU but works with us on many issues. In science and research funding, it contributes money and its researchers, universities and businesses take part in collaborative research, both based in the EU and trying to solve problems for citizens of Europe all over the world. We all benefit from the knowledge and innovation that, working together, they contribute. Any attempt to sanction Switzerland, by limiting its participation in science and research, could be very detrimental to us all.

Europe is changing. Some countries want closer integration; others do not. If we want to keep everyone in the single market, we will need to allow some countries to stay out of other parts. The reaction to this vote in Switzerland will be watched very carefully. It would be very foolish to retaliate too harshly.

  Κυριάκος Τριανταφυλλίδης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, στην Ελβετία ελήφθη μια απόφαση που λίγο διαφέρει από τις εξαγγελθείσες προθέσεις και άλλων χωρών να περιορίσουν την εργασία ξένων υπηκόων στις χώρες τους. Αυτό συνιστά σαφή διάκριση κατά των εργαζόμενων μεταναστών. Οι ξένοι εργαζόμενοι χρησιμοποιούνται, κυρίως από τις μεγαλοεπιχειρήσεις, ως φθηνό εργατικό δυναμικό με αποτέλεσμα να μειώνονται τα εργατικά δικαιώματα. Τα δικαιώματα των εργαζομένων πρέπει, δυνάμει των συλλογικών συμβάσεων, να γίνονται απόλυτα σεβαστά.

Επίσης, δεν μπορεί να γίνει αποδεκτή η πρακτική του να φορτώνεται το βάρος της κρίσης στους εργαζόμενους, είτε ντόπιους είτε ξένους. Αυτή είναι μία πρακτική που εφαρμόζουν κάποιες ακροδεξιές έως φασιστικές οργανώσεις και, κατά κάποιο τρόπο, και η ίδια η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση όταν θέτει ως πρώτη προτεραιότητα την ελεύθερη διακίνηση του κεφαλαίου σε ολόκληρη την Ένωση και μόνον ως δευτερεύουσα προϋπόθεση ή ως καθόλου προαπαιτούμενο τα δικαιώματα των εργαζομένων.

Προειδοποιούμε ότι οι δύο αυτές τάσεις αναγεννούν τον φασισμό και τον ρατσισμό. Πρέπει να αλλάξει ριζικά η αντιμετώπιση αυτών των δύο ζητημάτων: της μετανάστευσης και των εργαζομένων. Πρέπει να καταπολεμηθεί η ασυδοσία των εργοδοτών και η ακροδεξιά ρητορεία. Τα αντίποινα δεν αποτελούν λύση: απαιτείται ένας άλλος θεμελιώδης αναπροσανατολισμός τόσο για τη μετανάστευση όσο και για την προσέγγιση της εργασίας.

  Mara Bizzotto, a nome del gruppo EFD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il 9 febbraio 2014 il popolo svizzero, con un referendum, ha deciso il proprio futuro. Il popolo svizzero ha detto stop all'immigrazione. L'Europa deve prenderne atto e non condannare questa scelta che è libera e democratica.

Secondo voi, se lo stesso referendum venisse fatto negli altri paesi europei come andrebbe a finire? Se il referendum venisse fatto in Italia, dove ci sono 3 milioni e mezzo di disoccupati, dove il 40% dei giovani è senza lavoro, dove un terzo delle famiglie è a rischio povertà – il che significa che 18 milioni di italiani sono a rischio povertà –, il risultato sarebbe scontato. Perché, sapete cosa pensano gli italiani? Pensano che il lavoro deve essere dato prima a loro, che i sussidi e gli aiuti devono essere garantiti agli italiani e non agli immigrati, non agli ultimi arrivati, non a chi pretende tutto gratis senza aver mai pagato un euro di tassa.

In Italia 5 milioni di persone rinunciano a curarsi, rinunciano alla visita medica, rinunciano a comprarsi le medicine perché non hanno soldi. Anche per questo i cittadini italiani, come gli svizzeri, gli inglesi, i francesi, non ne possono più di subire l'arroganza di questa Europa che impone di spalancare le porte dei nostri paesi e del nostro mercato del lavoro. Fino a quanto non c'è lavoro per i nostri cittadini, fino a quando lo Stato non riesce a garantire i servizi ai propri cittadini, gli immigrati devono rimanere fuori.

Le accuse della Commissione, i soliti discorsi buonisti che sento qui dentro, le accuse di razzismo sono il modo sbagliato di affrontare il problema. L'Europa dimostra oggi ancora una volta la sua incapacità di affrontare...

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)

  Philip Claeys (NI). - Wat een lamentabel debacle was dit debat. Het had overal op televisie moeten worden uitgezonden, zodat de kiezers met eigen ogen het autoritaire, onverdraagzame en wereldvreemde karakter van deze EU zouden kunnen vaststellen.

En het totale onvermogen om te kunnen omgaan met het resultaat van een democratische stemming. Neen, mijnheer Cohn-Bendit, het heeft geen enkele zin om te beginnen schelden, want het referendum over de massa-emigratie in Zwitserland heeft alles te maken met het feit dat de Zwitsers opnieuw zélf willen kunnen bepalen wie hun land binnenkomt en onder welke voorwaarden.

Zij willen met andere woorden opnieuw baas worden in eigen land. Dit heeft niets te maken met xenofobie of wat dan ook. Het is de terugkeer van het gezond verstand. Ik heb nog meer slecht nieuws voor u, want mocht een dergelijk referendum komen in Vlaanderen, in Frankrijk, Nederland of Duitsland, dan zou men exact hetzelfde resultaat krijgen. Maar de afrekening komt wellicht op 25 mei aanstaande.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. - Mr[nbsp ]President, as many honourable Members have said in this discussion, free movement of workers and the right to supply services freely between the European Union and Switzerland have existed for a long time – since 2002 – and to clear mutual benefit. Our relations with Switzerland are long-standing, close and strong. Switzerland is at the heart of Europe, shares the same values as the rest of Europe and faces the same global challenges, so its future clearly lies in Europe.

It is now up to Switzerland to react to the consequences of the referendum, but we will certainly work together with the Swiss Government in order to put our relations on a new footing, acceptable to both sides.

  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, honourable Members, as was just said by the Commission, we have long-standing relations with Switzerland which are very close and strong. It is one of our major trading partners and our economies are closely interlinked. But one has to repeat that the free movement of persons is one of the four basic freedoms and an essential cornerstone of the internal market, and it should be clear that there can be no pick-and-choose approach as regards freedoms. They come as part of a package and should be upheld by all Member States and all partners. We fully respect the decision taken by the Swiss people, but we also expect Switzerland to respect its obligations under international agreements.

Let me also refer to an important issue to which the Council is very attentive, which is the recent attacks and negative press coverage of free movement of persons which has been fuelled by the result of the vote in Switzerland. We believe that generalisations and stories about benefit tourism or fraudsters are very dangerous to the public perception, especially in the light of rising populism. As politicians, we have a duty to avoid giving fuel to populist xenophobic tendencies. Public perception is directly linked to political statements. Allegations should be based on facts and figures and not on perceptions and opinions.

  Der Präsident. - Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149 GO)

  Biljana Borzan (S&D), napisan. – Sporazum o slobodi kretanja između EU-a i Švicarske iz 1999. predviđa da ukoliko jedan dio sporazuma bude suspendiran, ukida se cijeli sporazum. To je pozicija na kojoj EU mora inzistirati kako bi se zaštitili interesi obje strane. Zato je odluka izglasana na referendumu u Švicarskoj već rezultirala zamrzavanjem pregovora u okviru programa Obzor 2020. te Erasmusa plus. Sloboda kretanja jedna je od četiri temeljne slobode EU-a.

Hrvatski građani se već nalaze u nepovoljnijoj poziciji u odnosu na svoje sugrađane u EU-u, jer će im se ograničiti prava kretanja u odnosu na Švicarsku, uz već limitirana prava u nekim drugim članicama EU-a. Štete za mnoge hrvatske obitelji su time nemjerljive. Razlika između Hrvatske i drugih članica EU-a ne smije biti ni po kojem pitanju, pa tako ni po pitanju slobode kretanja!

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. – Estou profundamente preocupado com os resultados do referendo suíço de 9 de Fevereiro, em que 50,34 % dos seus cidadãos optaram pela introdução de quotas anuais para os imigrantes da UE e pelo princípio da preferência pelo trabalhador nacional em relação aos trabalhadores oriundos de países da EU. Estas são más notícias para a UE, mas principalmente para a Suíça, que cede assim a pressões populistas e demagógicas que, infelizmente, se têm vindo a espalhar pela Europa, assistindo-se a um crescimento de sentimentos anti-imigração. Não tenho dúvidas de que tal decisão põe em causa o acordo bilateral com a UE, o qual permitiu que desde 2002 existisse uma liberdade de circulação entre ambas. A participação no mercado único não permite uma escolha à la carte. Pelo contrário, as quatro liberdades de circulação – pessoas, bens, capitais e serviços – são indissociáveis. Espero que a Suíça tenha consciência das consequências que a possível implementação dessa decisão poderá acarretar. Não existe margem possível para qualquer tipo de negociações. A livre circulação é um direito fundamental, que não pode ser sujeito a restrições, sendo um dever comum, quer das instituições europeias quer dos Estados-Membros, proteger esse direito. A CE já avisou a Suíça e deverá estar preparada para defender este direito fundamental até às últimas consequências.

  Tonino Picula (S&D), napisan. – Većina građana jedne Švicarske odbila je usred Europe potvrditi, via facti, i već ugovoren model slobodnog kretanja ljudi iz EU-a. Slažem se da ne treba dramatizirati, ali nastalo stanje treba, ipak, prikazati u stvarnom svjetlu. Nakon referenduma u Švicarskoj o ograničavanju useljavanja u zemlju, posve je jasno da "Europa tvrđava" ne postoji kao pojam restriktivnog odnosa prema imigrantima ili slobodi kretanja samo na granicama EU-a prema Istoku ili na sjevernim obalama Mediterana.

Hrvatski građani nalaze se u nepovoljnijoj poziciji naspram svojih EU sugrađana, jer će im se ograničiti prava kretanja u odnosu na Švicarsku, pored već limitiranih prava u nekim drugim članicama EU-a. Sloboda kretanja je jedna od 4 temeljne slobode EU-a, koja u ovom slučaju postaje značajnija od drugih jer uz ekonomsku ima i simboličnu dimenziju. Naravno da je diskriminacija među članicama apsolutno neprihvatljiva. Pozdravljam stoga odlučan stav povjerenika Lászlóa Andora kako obje strane moraju nastaviti ispunjavati obaveze iz postojećih sporazuma, izrečen danas zastupnicima Europskog parlamenta o odnosima sa Švicarskom. Nadam se da razvoj situacije neće voditi poništavanju svih obostranih sporazuma u slučaju nepoštivanja jednog te očekujem da se što prije razriješi spor oko ratifikacije dokumenata kojima se odnosi EU-a i Švicarske usklađuju s 28. članicom zajednice — Hrvatskom.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR), napisan. – Rezultat švicarskog referenduma o masovnom useljavanju ostavit će traga na odnosima između Europske unije i Švicarske, to je sasvim sigurno. Ovim putem željela bih izraziti žaljenje što će odnosi između dva partnera i prijatelja potencijalno biti narušeni. Moramo učiniti sve što je u našoj moći kako bismo minimalizirali i potom što prije sanirali nastalu štetu. Vrijednosti slobode i demokracije ne treba braniti samo deklarativno, već je zadaća sviju nas činiti to i u praksi.

Slobodna volja švicarskog naroda da stavi određena ograničenja na useljeničku politiku svoje države izražena na demokratskom narodnom referendumu je nešto što se mora poštovati. Švicarski narod ima pravo urediti svoju državu po svojoj volji. Ono što u ovom trenutku Unija može i treba učiniti jest revidirati potpisane bilateralne sporazume sa Švicarskom i uskladiti ih s novonastalom situacijom. Histerija izborne godine u kojoj se svi žele dokazati svojim biračima mora biti stavljena pod kontrolu kako se dugoročno ne bi poremetili dragocjeni prijateljski odnosi sa Švicarskom.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), písomne. – Aj keď chápem niektoré z obáv, ktoré majú občania Švajčiarska z rastúceho počtu občanov EÚ, ktorí sa usadili v ich krajine, nesúhlasím s politikou jednostranných krokov. Nie je možné na jednej strane využívať výhody, ktoré ponúkajú zmluvy s EÚ, a zároveň zavádzať obmedzenia vo vzťahu k[nbsp ]európskym občanom. O pripomienkach k platným zmluvám, ktoré majú opodstatnenie, je vždy možné rokovať. Toto je cesta, ktorú mala zvoliť švajčiarska vláda, a som si istá, že v EÚ by našla konštruktívneho partnera pripraveného riešiť vzniknuté problémy. Schovávať sa za výsledok referenda, ktoré iniciovala vládna strana, je prejavom alibizmu a nezodpovednosti.

  Der Präsident. - Ich erteile für eine persönliche Bemerkung Herrn Gollnisch nach Artikel[nbsp ]151 Absatz[nbsp ]1 der Geschäftsordnung das Wort. Herr Gollnisch, ich weise Sie allerdings darauf hin, dass Sie nicht zum Thema der Aussprache, sondern nur auf die Bemerkungen, die in Bezug auf Ihre Person gefallen sind, das Wort erhalten.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). - Monsieur le Président, j'interviens très brièvement pour un fait personnel puisque M.[nbsp ]Cohn-Bendit, alors pourtant que j'applaudissais la partie de son discours tendant à déclarer que le peuple suisse était libre et responsable, m'a traité de crétin.

L'humble brahmine que je suis s'incline devant ce monument de l'intelligence foisonnante qu'est mon collègue Cohn-Bendit, dont j'observe les évolutions depuis que nous étions étudiants ensemble à la Faculté de Nanterre. Je l'ai connu, et j'ai plein d'admiration pour son intelligence et plein d'humilité pour mon crétinisme.

Je l'ai connu anarchiste, ou crypto-anarchiste, aujourd'hui partisan du Nouvel Ordre mondialiste. Je l'ai connu cassant les urnes aux cris d'"élections, piège à cons" et aujourd'hui ardent démocrate. J'ai vu ses amis marxistes critiquer la traite des travailleurs, la dictature des marchés, la libre circulation des capitaux. Je vois qu'il y est aujourd'hui converti.

Mon intelligence n'est pas suffisante pour me hausser à cette immense variété que nous présente le collègue Cohn-Bendit.

  Der Präsident. - Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege Gollnisch! Wir haben Ihre Erklärung zur Kenntnis genommen. Ich weise darauf hin, dass ich Herrn Cohn-Bendit für diese Ausdrücke zur Ordnung gerufen habe. Ich weise auch darauf hin, dass ich Herrn Borghezio im Laufe der Debatte des Saales verwiesen habe und er damit für den Rest des heutigen Tages von der Teilnahme an der Sitzung ausgeschlossen ist. Beide Ordnungsmaßnahmen erfolgten vorbehaltlich weiterer Maßnahmen nach Artikel[nbsp ]152 Absatz[nbsp ]6 der Geschäftsordnung.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). - Mr President, one of the claimed benefits of EU membership is free movement of peoples. The EU is quick to condemn Switzerland’s recent democratic referendum result on the same subject...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Der Präsident. - Herr Kollege Campbell Bannerman! Wir werden jetzt nicht die Debatte fortsetzen über einen Geschäftsordnungsantrag.

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident