Speech delivered at the Europa Institut, University of Zurich, Switzerland on Bilateral Treaties Switzerland-EU

Speech by Diana Wallis MEP on Thu 28th Apr 2005

When preparing this speech for today, I looked back on the one I gave when you invited me in June 2002 to celebrate the coming into force of the first set of bilateral accords. Now, as then, you asked me to give a view from the EU. I underline that this is a view of an elected politician, a European Parliamentarian - it may not always be the same as the Commission view!

Three years ago I started by saying that Swiss-EU relations hardly ever trouble us in the European Parliament and I am pleased to report that the agreements on the second bilaterals are winding their way through our parliamentary process towards approval seemingly without difficulties and without perhaps attracting a great deal of interest. Switzerland, it seems, only attracts interest when there is a border issue. I could mention Kloten airport - but I won't, rather let me explore how some border issues may be resolved or eased by the second set of Bilaterals.

To illustrate what a borderless EU of free movement means let me relate two incidents from my own experience. Firstly, soon after the first set of Bilaterals came into force, I was asked to speak at a meeting in Basel. Imagine my surprise when a Swiss lady came up to me after the meeting and said, 'my home is here in Basel but I work in your constituency in Leeds'. Indeed she travelled every other week to Leeds to work for a British firm. This she could do thanks to the first set of Bilateral Agreements. Perhaps an unusual example because of the island nature of my home, but not I am sure unusual in terms of what happens across your many land borders.

Then, secondly, travelling home by plane one night, I overhead the very loud conversation going on behind me. There was a British man talking to his fellow passenger about how he went to work in the building trade every week in Spain from Yorkshire. He thought this was great; he liked the lifestyle and the money he could earn there. Then as they fell to talking about the 'euro', the tone of the conversation changed. 'NO' we don't want that they said! Clearly here was somebody happy to take advantage of free movement, but unable to see the advantages of the Euro! We too in Britain can be schizophrenic about the bits of the EU we wish to participate in but also I would say a little irrational. I have noticed here in Switzerland that many shops and businesses adopt a pragmatic attitude towards the Euro, almost more so than in my own country.

I could say that Britain is an island surrounded by water and Switzerland is an island surrounded by mountains and that this gives us a similar outlook. Indeed, it is the title of an interesting book on Swiss British attitudes: 'Insular Denken'! However, whilst Britain still rejects membership of Schengen, you are now, with the second set of bilaterals, taking that route. For Switzerland I think this makes good sense. You have had good experiences of the opportunities and possibilities offered by the free movement of people with the old EU 15. Now it is a question of taking on the parallel safeguards offered by membership of Dublin and Schengen. Crime and criminals do not respect borders, even mountains. You only have to look at the Norwegian experience. They, like you, are not members of the EU, but have now been members of Schengen and Dublin for a few years and it has been a positive experience. The focused exchange of information means they are much better able to identify criminals, and the statistics prove this. Border control in the traditional sense is not the answer; those who want to get through illegally know there are busy times when they can just get waved through. Or alternatively if you do not have the agreements with your neighbours you will always be at risk of them stepping up border controls as France and Germany have done in the past. Of course this is then to the detriment of law-abiding citizens who wish to cross. Open borders, combined with focused policing and intelligence, make much more practical sense - that has been the Norwegian experience. From the perspective of the EU, if you do not join it makes little difference, but you will always be vulnerable to increased border controls from you neighbours to the disadvantage of your economy and your citizens. The loss will be yours; as quite frankly I believe it is for my own country, despite our sea wall!

Your government has also been quite adept in negotiating the opportunity for a reference back to you if the agreements change in the future. This is important. I sense there is unease across Europe, which is also felt in your country about the ever changing nature of the EU. There is always something happening: last years historic Enlargement, the proposed Constitution, further enlargement. The evolution is constant. There is little likelihood that this will change. The EU has to constantly adapt to its own surroundings and the aspirations of its member States and citizens. However, I would urge you who are the experts at referendums not to be put off in your votes in June and September by the background noise elsewhere. If France should vote no to the constitution the week before your vote on Schengen, it will of course be deeply disappointing but it is not the end of the EU. We would just continue working for the moment on the basis of the Nice Treaty. Inconvenient it would be, but doubtless we would find a way forward. There is too much that is positive in the proposed constitution for it to be shelved.

The constitution improves the EU's democracy and transparency in ways that you would certainly appreciate. I remember my amazement when I first came to this city and indeed to this university almost thirty years ago as a law student, at being able to buy a copy of your federal constitution and city constitution in a local bookshop - see I still have it here. You cannot imagine the impression that this makes on someone who comes from a tradition of no written constitution, where only by recourse to a library of law books and an army of lawyers can we understand what our constitutional rights are. The European Union is a complex construct but the proposed constitution would give us the level transparency and accessibility you take for granted. Look too at what else is in the constitution: greater powers for the European Parliament, new rights to the national parliaments of the Member States to check on subisidiarity and, most importantly, a new right of citizen's initiative, modelled on your system. The European Union with is new constitution would begin to look more like Switzerland, taking in ideas and checks and balances you would well understand and feel comfortable with. Perhaps indeed you might find it easier to vote 'yes' to the constitution than your neighbour to the west.

That brings me to you second vote in September. This goes to the heart of your agreements with the EU. Indeed it goes to the heart of the basic principle on which the Union is founded - free movement of goods and persons. You have benefited from this. This was what you wanted when you accepted the first set of bilateral agreements. You have also been champions and supporters of last year's historic enlargement. So what is the problem with making that support a reality, especially with the counterbalance of Schengen and Dublin in place? It has to make sense. Within the EU the enlargement has been a success. Why should you hesitate at the risk of collapsing all your agreements that have brought undeniable benefits?

Of course, we respect your right and your decision at present to remain outside the EU and gradually to participate in some of our arrangements. But might I say my own country, sometimes to my dismay, is an example of the reverse; being within the EU but choosing not to participate in certain regimes. I do not necessarily recommend this as a model but it certainly gives greater influence (I should say democratic influence) on European and indeed world affairs than being completely on the outside. The point of greatest leverage is the moment of joining. Indeed even the Icelanders are coming to speak to the Enlargement Commissioner next month, probably about fish! So all things are possible when you eventually decide to join the club. But for the moment I wish you success in your referendums and I look forward to the next invitation to celebrate the coming into force of the second set of Bilateral Agreements.

Ends.

Diana Wallis MEP