Europe responds to the Swiss referendum - and it ain't pretty

We suspect the reverberations from the decision in the Swiss referendum to cap the number of EU migrants might be felt for some time (we look at what the long term implications could be for the UK here). The Swiss case is interesting because unlike the debate on migrants from Central and Eastern Europe in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, it primarily affects citizens of the wealthier member states, primarily Germany, France and Italy. Here are some immediate reactions from around Europe.

The tone from the Berlin has been quite tough with Steffan Seibert, Merkel's spokesperson commenting that:

"The government takes note of the result and respects it but it is also the case, in our view, that it throws up considerable problems... It's in our interest to keep EU-Swiss relations as close as possible."

Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) added that "I believe that with this result Switzerland has harmed itself". He also dusted off the classic line so beloved of his predecessor in the post:

"there can be no cherry-picking when it comes to the EU" 

The new FDP leader Christian Linder echoed this sentiment arguing that "The Swiss are taking from the European buffet only that what they want" (which is kind of the point of a buffet). Interestingly however he added that he was "open-minded" about having more referenda in Germany.

Meanwhile Alternative für Deutschland leader Bernd Lucke didn't explicitly argue for capping EU migration although he struck a different tone compared with the established German parties, arguing that:

"Irrespective of the result of the Swiss referendum we can also achieve in Germany an immigration law which is based on qualifications and he ability to integrate while preventing benefits migration... If necessary we could have such referendums [in Germany]."

The least diplomatic response came from Ralf Stegner, leader of the SPD faction in Schleswig-Holstein who took to twitter to describe the Swiss as "crazy".

Die spinnen, die Schweizer!
— Ralf Stegner (@Ralf_Stegner) February 9, 2014

The response in France has also been quite tough with Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius arguing that:

“This is bad news for Europe and the Swiss, because Switzerland will be penalised from withdrawing into itself... There’s a so-called ‘guillotine clause’ establishing that if one of the elements [of the Swiss-EU bilateral deal] is put into question – in this case, the free movement of workers – everything falls down. Therefore, this means we’ll have to renegotiate […] This means we’re going to reconsider our relations with Switzerland.”

Former French PM Fillon (UMP) was commented that:

“It would be totally incomprehensible if Switzerland put a barrier to the access of cross-border workers… On the other hand, that [Switzerland] wants to reduce the overall number of foreigners on its territory is a perfectly natural demand.”

Italy's Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said that:

“The impact [of the Swiss referendum] is undoubtedly very worrying, with regard to both Italy and the other agreements with the EU.” 

Matteo Salvini, the leader of Lega Nord, said:

“Hurrah for Switzerland’s democratic referendum. We’ll propose one in Italy, too.”

However, his fellow party member Roberto Cota – the governor of Piedmont – voiced concern over the future of cross-border workers from his region, claiming that:

“Respect is needed, because we’re talking about honest and regular workers. Together with [Roberto] Maroni [the governor of Lombardy, another senior Lega Nord member] we’ll request a meeting with [Italian Prime Minister Enrico] Letta on this issue as soon as possible.”

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague was quite restrained, commenting that he did not want to prejudge the results of the negotiations, adding that:

"We will be mindful of the position of 40,000 British nationals who work in Switzerland".

Irish foreign minister Eamon Gilmore warned that “We are seeing signs of the rise of the far-right in Europe” while the Luxembourgian foreign minister Jean Asselborn has been the most outspoken, claiming that the vote has put the Swiss in “good company” with people such as Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French Front National.

There have also been some strong responses coming out of Brussels with EU Commission spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde-Hansen commenting that:

"The message is clear today: free movement of people is a sacred right for the EU... This will clearly have implications for the rest of the agreements [with Switzerland]."

EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, never knowingly understated, argued that "the single market is not a Swiss cheese. You cannot have a single market with holes in it" which is a silly statement given that the Swiss trading relationship actually is a bit like a Swiss cheese, with patchy market access in services, for example.

The response from MEPs is also interesting as they might have a say in the negotiations (although this is a bit of a grey area). While EP President Martin Schulz was relatively restrained, other senior MEPs were quick to stick the boot in.

Disappointing Swiss referendum will lead to disadvantages for CH in new negotiations with EU. #abst14 #CHvote
— Hannes Swoboda (@Hannes_Swoboda) February 9, 2014

So a lot of posturing. These negotiations will be very, very interesting...

I-spy: EU-US trade talks under threat?

To what extent have the latest leaks harmed the EU-US trade talks?

Fugitive whistleblower Edward Snowden’s leaks just keep giving.

First there was Prism, then Tempora. And now, as reported by online by German magazine Der Spiegel over the weekend:  the US has allegedly been spying on EU missions and institutions on both sides of the Atlantic.

Here's a round-up the European response at the national and EU levels:

National

The leaks have caused the most outrage in Germany, which was allegedly monitored more than other countries, leading the Federal government to respond on Monday.

"If it is confirmed that diplomatic representations of the European Union and individual European countries have been spied upon, we will clearly say that bugging friends is unacceptable...We are no longer in the Cold War", said a government spokesman in Berlin. He added that Chancellor Merkel will soon be speaking to President Obama about the matter.

Other German politicians that had been clamouring for a US explanation include German President Joachim Gauck (who quoted Benjamin Franklin: "Those who give up liberty to gain security will lose both'"), Vice-Chancellor Philipp Roesler and Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. The SPD, the Greens and Die Linke had also been agitating for Chancellor Merkel to intervene.

France isn't happy either, with French President François Hollande calling for an "immediate" end to the alleged spying if the EU-US trade negotiations are to continue. "We cannot accept this kind of behaviour between partners and allies...There can be no negotiations or transactions in any areas until we have obtained these guarantees, for France but also for all of the European Union, for all partners of the United States."

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius added the reports were "completely unacceptable," if corroborated, while his colleague, Christiane Taubira, the Justice Minister,  called US actions “an act of unqualified hostility.”

Italy’s Defence Minister Mario Mauro weighed in this morning, saying that US-Italian relations would be “compromised," if the reports are true. "If we are allies, if we are friends, [then] it’s not acceptable that someone in this relationship behaves like the Soviet Union used to behave towards its satellite states,” he added.

EU

EU officials, political groups and MEPs are miffed too.

Catherine Ashton, The EU's foreign policy chief said the EU is seeking  “urgent clarification." Meanwhile Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, said he was “deeply worried” by the reports, and warned of a “severe impact” on EU-US relations if they are true (remember, the EP's role in EU trade talks was enhanced under the Lisbon Treaty).

Schulz told French radio station France 2 that the US had crossed a line,"I was always sure that dictatorships, some authoritarian systems, tried to listen ... but that measures like that are now practiced by an ally, by a friend, that is shocking, in the case that it is true."

This was echoed by Viviane Reding,  the EU justice commissioner: “Partners do not spy on each other,” she said. “We cannot negotiate over a big transatlantic market if there is the slightest doubt that our partners are carrying out spying activities on the offices of our negotiators."

“How should we still negotiate [a free trade agreement with the US] if we must fear that our negotiating position is being listened to beforehand?” said Elmar Brok, the chairman of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

In an interview, Czech MEP Libor Roucek, the deputy chairman of the S&D group for Foreign Affairs and Transatlantic Relations, said he "can't exclude the option that [he's] being monitored by the US secret services."
 
Some went further, calling for a suspension of the US-EU trade talks altogether. This included the European Parliament's Green Group, and MEPs like the Dutch social democrat Thijs Berman: "[The] US spies on EU diplomats. That's not how we can negotiate a free trade deal. Suspending is logical step," he tweeted on Sunday.

Press
 
The revelations have caused an uproar in the European press (Le Parisien’s ‘hammy’ front page of Obama ‘listening in' captures the general drift), and most of all in Germany. 

Spiegel Online published a commentary today that not only criticised America, but also the lack of action by the government.“The federal government has failed to protect Germans from America’s spy-attacks. This is unacceptable to citizens," it says, calling for an “independent education”  for the US from the German Constitutional Court and a European Committee.

Meanwhile, Austrian Daily Der Standard published a commentary that diverged from the general thrust of European media feeling. Spying is to be expected says the piece: "It would be surprising indeed if the opposite were the case. Being spied on by an ally is about as normal as the systematic surveillance of political opponents."
  
Perhaps Der Standard is right that much of this skulduggery does go on, even amongst allies. But, still, although this is unlikely to deal a fatal blow to EU-US trade talks, the political consequences could well be that certain European countries dig their heels in a little firmer in the negotiations.

On a more general note, for individuals concerned about their privacy and civil liberties, this type of issue only heightens fears that the increasing amount of personal data shared among EU governments isn’t safe and that the protections are inadequate.

In recent years the EU has been developing more and more data sharing databases, and it is not always clear to the general public what happens to their data – this will only fuel ‘big brother’-type fears that is open to misuse, abuse or simply could be accessed by anyone.

What do a British Conservative PM and a French Socialist President have in common?

Over on the Telegraph blog, we note:

David Cameron will have his first face-to-face meeting with newly elected French President Francois Hollande today, at a G8 summit in the US. There has been some fuss about Cameron and Hollande not getting along. Cameron snubbed Hollande during a visit to London. And, most importantly, one is a French Socialist, the other a British Conservative. They must be each other’s diametrical opposite, surely?
Well, judging from some of their remarks and actions over the last year, if one didn’t know any better one would think they actually have quite a bit in common:

Both are trying to cut deficits: Yes, despite all the anti-austerity rhetoric, Hollande is trying cut spending too (as we’ve noted, the difference between the economic plans of Hollande and the ousted Sarkozy was paper thin). As his new economy minister Pierre Moscovici put it, “Hollande has always said that we should tackle state debt and reduce deficits”. Hollande wants to achieve a ‘balanced budget’ by 2017, Cameron wants to eliminate the UK’s spending deficit by 2015, albeit both are likely to fail.

Both have threatened to veto an EU treaty: In December, Cameron vetoed an EU Treaty change to impose greater fiscal discipline in the Eurozone. Equally, Hollande has implicitly threatened to veto the free standing ‘fiscal treaty’ (itself a result of Cameron’s veto), unless a clause on various fiscal stimulus measures is added. The rationale in each case is of course different but both have clashed with Germany’s view of the solution to the crisis.

Both have called for the ECB to become the euro’s lender of last resort: Causing half the German population to choke on their morning pretzels, Cameron and Hollande have both called on the ECB to do far more to “share the burden” of the Eurozone crisis through monetary activism, which probably means the ECB buying hundreds of billions of government bonds (which Cameron has endorsed implicitly, Hollande explicitly).

Both have toyed with the idea of eurobonds: In the past, both have called for a discussion on the eurozone moving to full debt pooling via eurobonds. Cameron called for it again yesterday, while Hollande hasn’t mentioned the idea since August last year and seems to have backtracked somewhat (his ‘project bonds’ are something different).

Both leaders have cabinets with ministers who opposed the flagship Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution: Laurent Fabius, new Foreign Minister, campaigned successfully for a “no” vote to the European Constitution in in 2005, while his UK counterpart William Hague, and most of Cameron’s cabinet (Ken Clarke excepted) opposed both the European Constitution and its successor the Lisbon Treaty.

So what’s my point? Of course, there are a whole range of disagreements between the two leaders. But two observations: first, the ‘austerity vs. growth’ debate is fundamentally false – even the proclaimed anti-austerity champion realises that public spending needs to be cut (at least in theory), while everyone is in favour of ‘growth’. The debate is on how to get there. Secondly, the line between the alleged ‘Eurosceptic’ and the alleged ‘pro-European’ suddenly becomes awfully blurred (who’s who again?) as both, obviously to different degrees, have problems with the status quo in the EU/Eurozone.

Bends assumptions doesn’t it?