Switzerland's bilateral agreements mean it has the best association with the EU after membership. Its relationship in some ways is more unique and privileged since it does not have obligations like the 27 members.
Negotiating a special association like that of Switzerland was not the norm for the EU. As the Commission pointed out to Malta during our debate on whether to join the Union or not, 'Europe a la carte' was not possible.
Although Switzerland's government was always inclined to join the EU, the Swiss people were not and turned down the European Economic Area as far back as 1992. As a result, the government suspended its membership application.
Soon after, in 1994, the Swiss and the EU launched the bilateral agreement process that today brings Switzerland as close as possible to the EU. Under this arrangement, any change in EU law will be adopted in Switzerland only if a bilateral Swiss/EU commission agrees to it by consensus. This gives the Swiss some kind of reassurance that their sovereignty remains untouched.
Switzerland is also unique in that the Swiss do not have to wait four or five years to have their say in a general election. They have the authority to put a disputed matter up for referendum. This is exactly what happened in the case of the agreement on the free movement of people which was approved in 2002 for seven years.
The Swiss government agreed by a large majority in Parliament to extend the agreement and also agreed to include Bulgaria and Romania, the latest countries to join the EU. However, this was challenged and a referendum is scheduled for February 8.
The agreement on the free movement of people was due to be implemented in a phased manner. The quotas for the 15 EU states, together with Malta and Cyprus, were revoked on May 31, 2007. Restrictions will continue to apply to the eastern European states that joined the EU in 2004 until April 30, 2011. For Bulgaria and Romania, which joined the EU in 2007, the restrictions on immigration will apply for seven years after the agreement comes into effect, to be followed by a special protection clause for a further three years.
What some people are not aware of is that if the referendum on the free movement of people does not go in favour of the extension, the other bilateral agreements may also fall through.
Brussels, apparently, has already indicated that if the free movement of people agreement is not extended, it will review all the other agreements. This is of some concern to the Swiss government, which is doing its utmost to make the public aware of the potential repercussions.
It is being pointed out that this agreement is a decisive factor for the economy and thus the standard of living in Switzerland. The fear of an unregulated influx of foreigners from the EU taking jobs from the Swiss proved to be unfounded in the last six years or so. Also unfounded was the fear that Swiss wages would be adversely affected or that there would be an excessive burden on the social welfare system.
Bilateral Agreements I and II, as they are referred to, govern a comprehensive a la carte relationship that both the EU and the Swiss can live with.
In addition to the free movement of people, the original agreements (I) covered air and road traffic, agriculture, technical trade barriers, public procurement and science. The follow-up agreements (II) consisted of security and asylum, including Schengen, fraud pursuits, and final stipulations on agriculture, environment, media, education, care of the elderly, statistics and services.
In spite of an obvious increase of beggars on the streets in Geneva, who some are saying come from one of the two countries that the Swiss want to give free movement to, it appears that the referendum would go the way the government wants it to, even if only marginally.
A recent effort to clear the streets of these beggars backfired when it was found that there was no law, at least in Geneva, against begging, and the police even had to reimburse some of these beggars the money that was confiscated from them when they were arrested.
Such a law was then enacted, but somehow the begging is continuing because, according to some newspapers, there is as yet no penalty included in the law, and therefore the authorities can do little more than chase the beggars away, who promptly return once the police leave.
This development is, of course, worrisome for the Swiss government since it does not want anything to influence the people to vote no on February 8, as this would place all their bilateral agreements in jeopardy.