Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA) questioned, on Wednesday 16 June, the European Commission about the future of relations with Switzerland. On 26 May, the Swiss Confederation had announced that it was ending negotiations on a framework agreement (see EUROPE 12727/14).
MEPs expressed their disappointment, stressing the importance of trade links with Bern. Switzerland is the EU’s fourth largest trading partner with a daily trade volume of over €1 billion.
According to the European Commission, the responsibility is not shared. “We deplore this unilateral decision by Switzerland. The Federal Council bears full responsibility”, Michael Karnitschnig, Director for External Relations, Secretariat-General at the European Commission, told MEPs.
For MEP Jörgen Warborn (EPP, Sweden) and most of his colleagues, “we cannot allow Switzerland to ‘cherry pick’ the framework agreement”.
For the ID group and the Conservatives, however, the Commission has its share of responsibility. “The Swiss demands do not seem excessive to me”, said Marco Campomenosi (ID, Italian).
The framework agreement was intended to modernise existing agreements in many areas. Now, with the evolution of European law in certain sectors, trade is becoming more complex.
MEPs therefore fear major obstacles ahead for European companies trading with Switzerland.
“It is really important to find a solution, we must think of the interest of businesses and citizens”, said Urmas Paet (Renew Europe, Estonia). The S&D and EPP shared this concern and also questioned which sectors were most affected.
The agreement on the mutual recognition of medical devices is no longer in force since 26 May, as the new European regulation on medical devices has entered into force. According to the European Commission, the machinery sector will also suffer from this erosion in the coming years.
The issue of the impact on cross-border workers was raised by most groups.
Responding to MEPs’ questions, Michael Karnitschnig assured them that the Commission was in no way out for revenge.
With regard to the existing agreements and their development, the Commission wants to examine each of them and make choices in the interest of Europeans above all. “We will look case by case when there is an upgrade issue, when it’s necessary because EU rules have changed. We will look at EU interests, EU social and environmental protection standards”.
He added that where there is a legal obligation in the agreement to update it, the Commission will do so. Otherwise, the European interest will take precedence over the decision to move forward with the agreement, or not at all. (Original version in French by Léa Marchal)