How would you describe Switzerland’s attitude towards the European Union (EU)? Switzerland has been pursuing the same goal for over 50 years; neither joining the European Union (EU) nor risking marginalisation. The nation is seeking a 3rd solution.
Why has Switzerland still not joined the EU? For various different reasons. First of all, Switzerland’s business sectors are traditionally hostile when it comes to the European Union. Swiss bosses have always found that the EU enacted too many laws that are contrary to their interests. The Swiss are the only European bosses to have consistently opposed their own nation’s participation in the EU.
At the end of the 1950s, certain directors of the Vorort, the Economiesuisse’s predecessor, actually considered the EU on a par with the Soviet Union. As far as they were concerned, there could be no greater insult. Today Mr. Gentinetta, the boss of Swiss bosses, firmly insists that it is out of the question to even consider membership. Numerous Swiss business sectors have become specialised in certain niche markets. They fear that these comparative advantages would vanish should the nation join the EU.
What do you mean by “niche markets”? These stem from small legislative differences with the EU that allow for advantages compared to their competitors.
For instance, customs duties are lower in Switzerland than they are in the EU.
It is therefore more advantageous to export gemstones from Russia to Switzerland and finish perfecting them here before re-exporting them as opposed to passing through the EU.
Generally speaking, Swiss business sectors also fear that joining the EU would make maintaining certain subtle legislations regarding taxes and bank secrecy increasingly difficult.
Is Switzerland’s reluctance solely due to economic concerns? No, it’s also an issue of national identity.
Switzerland has experienced absolutely no catastrophes for two centuries.
It’s the only nation in Europe to have endured neither war, occupation, dictatorship nor any serious social or economic crises since the early 19th Century. Hence, most Swiss have not experienced any emotional trauma severe enough to lead them to accept a dose of supra-nationality. That sets them apart from other European nations, who generally joined the EU after some such distressful ordeal.
The reluctance is also political as direct democracy creates a significant obstacle.
The Swiss can indeed vote by referendum on virtually any issue (remember the banning of minarets in 2009). One result of belonging to the EU would be that Swiss voters could no longer voice their opinion on decisions adopted by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Hence, it would impose limitations on the use of applications linked to direct democracy. It’s important not to lose sight of the relative context; it would only concern perhaps about 10% of the cases. But many Swiss already consider that to be too much.
And the issue of neutrality? From a legal standpoint, it’s a moot issue. But from a psycho-identity perspective, it’s a real problem. Legally, there is nothing incompatible about Swiss neutrality and participating in the EU. Indeed, the EU is not a military alliance, as is the case with NATO.
Furthermore, all decisions concerning military matters in the EU are made unanimously. Therefore Switzerland could exercise its right of veto. Neutral countries such as Finland, Austria or Ireland see no contradictions in belonging to the EU.
So the problem is more a psychological issue. Over 90% of the Swiss openly admit their attachment to neutrality.
It somehow represents their sense of identity. It’s the symbolic factor that differentiates the Swiss people from Outsiders, in foreign countries.
Considering all the arguments against joining the EU, one wonders why Switzerland doesn’t simply step aside? Because Switzerland is an enclave in the middle of Europe. 60% of the nation’s exports go to the EU and 80% of its imports come from the EU.
The same goes for matters regarding the flow of services, capital and investments.
It’s worth mentioning the hundreds of thousands of European workers in Switzerland. Under these circumstances, it would be suicidal to have too many laws which differ from those in the EU that would penalise Switzerland’s trade with the rest of Europe.
Hence the need to come up with intermediate solutions is in order to avoid this marginalisation? Indeed. But these intermediate solutions between integration and marginalisation are very complicated. Today, special bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the EU are what cover relations between the two parties.
There are about 120, but obviously some are more important than others.
Note that in order to get to this point the Swiss population has already had to express their opinion by referendum concerning topics linked to European integration 14 times. That gives some idea of how long and arduous it has been.
Precisely which agreements are the most important? The first dates back to 1972. It created a free trade zone between the EU and Switzerland. In fact, there are no longer any customs duties on industrial products. But these tariffs still apply to agricultural products and Switzerland retains customs tariffs that differ from the EU.
Over the past 10 years, other agreements have removed barriers other than customs tariffs. A Swiss pharmaceutical product can now enter the EU territory without administrative obstacles whereas a product manufactured by their Russian competitors, for example, will be obliged to undergo additional tests and certifications that will make it less competitive.
In terms of aviation, a Swiss company can carry passengers from Berlin to Paris, which Aeroflot is not authorised to do. The same goes for other means of transportation or services.
What about Schengen and the free movement of persons? Firstly, it’s important not to confuse the two concepts. Schengen (named for a village in Luxemburg) means that there are no longer any border crossing regulations on the movement of persons between EU nations. The Swiss have been included in the Schengen zone since December, 2008. For citizens of non-EU countries, this allows them to obtain a single visa that is valid for all the nations in the EU without needing to make separate requests for each one of them.
Free movement of persons is in fact the right for any EU citizen to reside in another EU member state. The only requirement is to have either an employment contract or sufficient financial resources. After many fierce debates and innumerable referenda, a majority of Swiss finally agreed to adopt this right of residency. As of 2009, this policy applies without restrictions to citizens of Western European nations, but Central and Eastern European nationals are still subjected to mandatory transition periods.
What changes does that specifically entail? First of all, the Swiss labour market is not allowed to discriminate against a citizen of one of the 27 EU states by giving a Swiss worker priority status in terms of employment.
The quotas for EU citizens were then abolished. Hence, if they have an employment contract, EU nationals can come as much as they like, leading to a massive influx of Germans in German-speaking Switzerland. But this demographic impact has also been a wonderful asset which contributed to Switzerland’s economic growth over the past few years. In fact, companies can now tap into a potential labour pool of 500 million employees whereas they were previously limited to 7 million Swiss. However, this did not increase Switzerland’s unemployment rate and it remained the lowest in Europe.
But why do the Swiss continue their bitter debates on the European issue although the bilateral agreements seem to satisfy everyone? It’s the ‘satellite nation’ problem.
First of all, the Swiss federal government adopts numerous EU laws without being able to take part in their development and decision making processes.
A recent study just revealed that 25% of Swiss laws are either directly or indirectly drawn from EU laws. As a result, some people wonder if it wouldn’t be better to join the EU in order to protect Swiss interests within the organisation.
Another problem linked to anxiety about becoming a “satellite nation” concerns the evolution of acquis communautaire – the body of common laws, rights and obligations which binds all the European Union member states. This means that if an EU law changes, Brussels requires Switzerland to adopt it. But the agreements between Switzerland and the EU are immutable. They are generally inflexible.
Can you cite a specific example? When a product is exported to the EU from elsewhere in the world – let’s say Russia – it must be declared 24 hours in advance due to anti-terrorist security issues. Switzerland obtained the right to not be considered an exterior nation through a particular agreement. Hence, a Swiss exporter doesn’t have to declare any delivery to the EU 24 hours ahead of time as opposed to his Russian competitors.
Now let’s suppose that this EU law changes. For example, the EU decides that a product must be declared 48 hours ahead of time. Brussels will require that Switzerland no longer maintain the 24 hour rule as it would be easier to export products from Russia to Switzerland rather than to the EU.
The risk is that Switzerland would become a hub to circumvent the new EU legislation. Consequently, Switzerland would have to abide by the changes in EU acquis communautaire and go to the 48 hour rule. It’s logical in terms of the EU market’s homogeneity. But it’s a hindrance in terms of Switzerland’s independence.
It would almost require a magic formula to resolve this dilemma between the evolution of EU law and maintaining Swiss sovereignty? Yes, that is precisely the crux of the debate. It’s a matter of finding a kind of magic formula which would allow future bilateral agreements to be modifiable without giving the Swiss the impression that they’re no more than little peons who can’t even voice their opinion on the development of new EU legislation.
That’s why joint committees of an array of experts in various fields have just been formed in order to find a solution.
If the ‘open sesame’ can be found, then I’ll wager that the bilateral solution still has a bright future ahead.
But should no agreement be reached or if the Swiss people vote against a compromise, the question of EU membership will come up again; because Switzerland could then at least participate, albeit modestly, in the decision making process.
You bring up a total and entire Swiss adhesion to the EU. Isn’t that hard to believe? It’s an undeniable fact that the Swiss can’t imagine a political system without negotiation and compromise. Should the bilateral solution fail, Switzerland is more likely to seek a ‘light’ form of EU membership, allowing some margin for exceptions. For example, the nation would not adopt the Euro, as is the case in Sweden. Naturally, it would seek to protect what’s left of its bank secrecy.
In conclusion, to join or not to join? I predict more of a paradox, I have a feeling that the closer Switzerland gets to the EU through bilateral agreements, the further away any prospect of joining becomes. Therefore, I don’t foresee Switzerland becoming a member of the EU in the next 10 years.
