Swiss ambassador says EU membership "makes sense"

The Swiss Ambassador to Italy and Malta, Alexis Lautenberg, said the biggest advantage of EU membership for Switzerland and Malta would be the participation of both countries in decisions that directly affected them.

In an interview with The Times during a visit to Malta, Mr Lautenberg, who is based in Rome, said the Swiss government remained in favour of EU membership despite the people having voted against the immediate start of negotiations.

The issue, he said, had been shelved for the time being, as the government respected the wishes of the people. "In Switzerland, when the people speak in a referendum the verdict is always respected."

Mr Lautenberg is in Malta for the signing of an agreement providing for a new Maltese-Swiss foundation for the promotion of IT technology in diplomacy.

Describing relations between the two countries as excellent, he said the foundation would be based in Malta with strong cooperation from Geneva, particularly the Institute of International Relations.

On the Maltese government's approach of seeking EU membership, which he said made a lot of sense, he described participating in the decision-making process in Brussels as the greatest advantage.

"It is difficult nowadays to advocate even from a medium sized country the compatibility of totally different rules in a set-up of continental dimensions. You can stay out but then don't believe that you don't have to adhere to the rules."

The biggest advantage of EU membership, he said, was that one would be able to sit round the table at which decisions were being taken.

"For an economically strong country like Switzerland, what is important is who defines the rules of the game. There is a manifest interest of the country to participate in the definition of those rules.

"As the situation stands now, in many cases we adopt those rules without participating in the decision-making process."

On the Labour Party's policy of making Malta the Switzerland of the Mediterranean, Mr Lautenberg said: "Every country is a case of its own and I would be careful on such an issue... I wouldn't say that what we have negotiated with the EU can be transposed to another country. Every country is very different and there is a tendency for the EU to reduce the number of models. The only institutionalised model that exists is the European Economic Area agreement that presupposes the acceptance of the entire acquis."

He also said that when comparing the two countries one had to take into account that the Swiss economy was highly integrated globally and therefore much more exposed to major changes in the international economic system than Malta.

Asked whether he believed the special relationship between Switzerland and the EU could be applied to Malta if the Maltese decided to stay out, Mr Lautenberg said: "I don't think that there are two countries that can be compared to each other. For instance the situation with Turkey, Norway and Iceland is completely different from the Swiss scenario or the Maltese case.

"What I can say is that there is a tendency from the side of the EU to harmonise third country relations in one way or another precisely to avoid having an à la carte solution with any particular country."

He also referred to Malta and Switzerland as two neutral countries, explaining that neutrality and EU membership were not incompatible.

He said that neutral EU member states like Ireland and Austria were evidence of this compatibility. He personally believed that the perception of neutrality was very different in today's international environment.

"My very personal feeling is that we should all do a little bit of rethinking on this issue and maybe redefine what neutrality means in the present context."

Speaking on the special relations between Switzerland and the EU, Mr Lautenberg said that when one took a detailed look at the map, one would see the extent to which Switzerland was in the centre of Europe.

"This has a lot of implications. Basically the first institutional step was taken in 1972, when together with the other EFTA countries we had concluded bilateral free trade agreements. The moment of truth came towards the eighties and beginning of the nineties when the EU moved towards the single market and when the EU offered the EFTA countries full participation with the agreement on the European Economic Area.

"Unfortunately, and I am saying this very clearly, the Swiss voted down that participation and that led to a very complicated situation because we manoeuvred ourselves not only out of the perspective of membership but also out of the participation in the single market.

"This was the backdrop against which we negotiated seven very important bilateral agreements with the EU which took a very long time. We started negotiations in 1994 and they entered into force in June of this year.

"These are important agreements. They cover the area of free movement of persons, where we accepted to take on board the full acquis together with a certain mechanism to reduce the risk of an influx of workers."

He said there had been enormous concern in Switzerland over the possibility of an influx of workers when the agreement came into force in June of this year.

However, from their experience over the past five months, "the effect has been absolutely negligible. On this account I can be very frank. I don't think that in Europe there is a major threat on this front".

The second important agreement was on land transport, under which Switzerland and the EU agreed on a new approach, laying down the rules for the progressive transfer of heavy transport from road to rail.

Other agreements cover the areas of public procurement, the elimination of obstacles to trade and the agricultural sector.

"We are now negotiating on almost a dozen new agreements, two of which are particularly important. One is the participation of Switzerland in Schengen.

"Schengen was a suggestion that came from the Swiss side. When you look at the Schengen area on the map, it does not make a lot of sense to have a big hole in the middle of the continent. Therefore, it is in the interest of both sides to close that hole to see that the same rules are applied all over.

"Well before September 11, we had a very precise worry about a certain lack of information that existed because we were not participating at Schengen level. Schengen has its own information system which is open only to its members. To be able to participate in this scheme is a clear plus from a security point of view. But this is an agreement which is still being negotiated and would be subject to approval - or otherwise - by the Swiss people.

"One of the other agreements being negotiated covers taxation of capital revenue. This is an area which is particularly sensitive because the EU has decided to go in the direction of the elimination of any banking secrecy in the EU."

Asked about the threat of sanctions being imposed from Brussels over the dispute on bank secrecy, Mr Lautenberg said: "To be quite honest, we have not taken that threat very seriously because we do not believe these are the sort of methods used among friends...

"We are offering a very far-reaching withholding tax on the revenue, a good share of which will be transferred to the finance ministries of the states of the account holders. This is a compromise which is still being discussed with the EU."

Do you think the agreements between Switzerland and the EU favour one side more than the other?

"It is very difficult to say. Even those with pure economic content are difficult to quantify. The issue behind our relationship is to reduce certain regulatory gaps that exist. I don't think that such agreements would have been concluded if there was not a broad balance between the two sides. It is very difficult to quantify the advantages of these instruments."