Micheline Calmy-Rey, a former Swiss president, thinks she knows what lies in store for Britain after its historic vote to leave the EU last month. She believes the UK has little option but to follow Switzerland itself.
“There isn’t what you can call a ‘Swiss model’; there is a ‘Swiss way’,” says Ms Calmy-Rey, who now teaches at Geneva university, referring to the more than 120 bilateral deals that provide Switzerland access to EU markets without some of the burdens of membership.
“I think it is inevitable that the UK will go the same way,” she adds. “I can’t see any other alternatives working.”
Such a path might prove highly attractive for a UK government pondering life after the EU and keen to establish controls over European immigration while minimising economic damage. The Swiss are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, their 8m strong country a stable, low-tax democracy.
Christoph Blocher, a veteran Swiss People’s party politician, argues that there are clear parallels between Brexit and his own successful campaign against Switzerland joining the European Economic Area — a waystation to membership — two-and-a-half decades ago.
“It was the same in our 1992 referendum,” he says. “All of the experts had predicted it would be our downfall. It would be an economic disaster, we would be isolated. None of that happened.”
And yet Switzerland’s arrangement with the EU may be difficult for Bern to maintain, let alone for the UK to replicate.
While Europe’s leaders scramble to deal with the UK, Swiss politicians are frantically seeking ways to preserve a web of trade and other agreements while implementing the outcome of a referendum that has caused problems of its own.
In February 2014 the Swiss voted narrowly for quotas on EU immigration — in direct contradiction with the EU’s cherished principle of the free movement of people across the continent.
“Like in the UK, nobody has a plan,” says Max Stern, co-founder of Foraus, a Swiss foreign policy forum. “There are ideas about what we might do but we don’t know how the EU will react. It’s a super high-risk situation.”
UK Brexiters might in any case object to the way Switzerland pays into EU programmes and has to adopt many of the bloc’s rules — without having any say over them.
But with Switzerland formally abandoning its goal to join the EU, Brussels has refused to deepen ties any further until the country has signed up to a broader deal to adopt EU rules as they evolve. Swiss voters would almost certainly reject any agreement to obey rulings of the European Court of Justice — also one of Brexiters’ chief causes of complaint.
If Bern also reneges on the principle of free movement of people, many of the most important existing bilateral deals with the EU could also become void.
Already, the stand-off has cast doubt over the future participation of Swiss universities in European research projects. To the dismay of Swiss banks, talks have been shelved on a financial services agreement.
Some Swiss see the UK vote as helpful in finding a way out. “Great Britain is a bigger power, it has leverage,” says Ms Calmy-Rey. “Switzerland could benefit from Brexit because it gets a de facto ally in its negotiations with the EU.”
When it comes to scientific research programmes, “the EU will not want to exclude the UK’s world-class universities”, argues Thomas Aeschi, one of a new generation of Swiss People’s party leaders. So there would be concessions too for top Swiss institutions, he says
The debate over the UK could open possibilities that would work for Switzerland, Mr Aeschi adds. “The EU has to recognise that it needs models which allow different countries to move at different speeds — including on the free movement of people.”
But the timing of the UK vote was bad for Switzerland. A three-year deadline for implementing the 2014 referendum result expires next February.
“It will penalise Switzerland because we don’t know the policy trade-offs that will be decided for the UK — and won’t for some time
”
- Alexis Lautenberg
“Brexit will mean a bumpy ride because of the spillovers,” says Alexis Lautenberg, former Swiss ambassador to the UK. “Short term, it will penalise Switzerland because we don’t know the policy trade-offs that will be decided for the UK — and won’t for some time.”
Swiss officials are working on compromise solutions, such as introducing an “emergency brake” procedure to halt immigration if the country becomes overwhelmed. A solution might have to be temporary pending resolution of the UK’s own immigration concern. To break the stalemate, however, Switzerland will probably need another referendum on its relationship with the EU.
“Up until now we could always find compromises that were in the interests of both sides,” says Christa Markwalder, a senior politician in the liberal FDP party. “I don’t know whether the pragmatism on the EU side is still there.”
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
UK Chilcot report find fault with involvement in Iraq war - Independent
Bereaved families of some of the 179 British servicepeople killed during the Iraq war burst into loud applause after hearing Sir John Chilcot deliver a summary of the long-awaited report into the conflict.
At their own press coneference, held immediately after Sir John delivered his findings, Sarah O'Connor, the sister of one dead soldier was cheered as she decribed Tony Blair as "the world's worst terrorist".
Ms O'Connor, whose brother Sergeant Bob O'Connor was killed in 2005 when the aircraft he was in was bought down by insurgents, said: "There is one terrorist that the world needs to be aware of and his name is Tony Blair, the world's worst terrorist."
The bereaved families made clear they would now be considering legal action on the basis of the Chilcot and that Tony Blair was likely to be one of their targets.
Grieving mothers, fathers, partners and other family members were present in the Queen Elizabeth II centre in London to read as much as they could of the 2.6 million-word, 12-volume tome, and to hear Sir John Chilcot read a summary of the findings.
They had arrived saying that had Sir John’s report not given grounds for them taking legal action in relation to the war, there would be “something terribly wrong with our political process”.
In the event, families burst into loud applause after hearing Sir John deliver a summary which including searing criticism of the failure to equip troops in Iraq properly and which stated that in the run-up to the war the alleged threat posed by Iraq was “presented with a certainty that was not justified.”
They also heard Sir John say that "Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were under-estimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate. The Government failed to achieve its stated objectives."
The Ministry of Defence was "slow" to respond to the threat from insurgents' roadside bombs, resulting in delays in the supply of armoured vehicles to protect troops which "should not have been tolerated".
This appeared to echo the comments of Richard and Maureen Bacon whose son Matthew died when his Snatch Land Rover was hit by an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) in Basra in September 2005.
Hourse before Sir John delivered his verdict, Mr Bacon told The Independent, that Tony Blair had delayed military planning and equipment procurement for the war “Because he didn’t want it to be seen that he was pre-empting any UN resolution. He was manipulating the system.”
The result, said Mr Bacon, was that his son died in a Snatch Land Rover with inadequate detection systems to protect against IEDs that could go through the insufficiently armoured vehicle “like a knife through butter.”
Mr Bacon said: “There were 27 incidents in which a serviceman got killed by an IED while travelling in a Snatch Land Rover. The first incident had been in 2004. With Snatch Land Rovers it was like Russian roulette.
“If the IED had been laid on that patrol’s route, and if the insurgents had people in place to set it off, then that vehicle was going to get hit.”
Mr Bacon, a retired police officer, added that there had to be “consequences” for leaders who sent soldiers to war unnecessarily.
“Because the consequences for the people they send is that some of them die doing the job they were told to do.”
As a result of the Chilcot Report, he added, “There has to be a basis for some kind of [legal] action, to ensure this never happens again. If not, I would say there is something terribly wrong with the political process.”
*
At their own press coneference, held immediately after Sir John delivered his findings, Sarah O'Connor, the sister of one dead soldier was cheered as she decribed Tony Blair as "the world's worst terrorist".
Ms O'Connor, whose brother Sergeant Bob O'Connor was killed in 2005 when the aircraft he was in was bought down by insurgents, said: "There is one terrorist that the world needs to be aware of and his name is Tony Blair, the world's worst terrorist."
The bereaved families made clear they would now be considering legal action on the basis of the Chilcot and that Tony Blair was likely to be one of their targets.
Grieving mothers, fathers, partners and other family members were present in the Queen Elizabeth II centre in London to read as much as they could of the 2.6 million-word, 12-volume tome, and to hear Sir John Chilcot read a summary of the findings.
They had arrived saying that had Sir John’s report not given grounds for them taking legal action in relation to the war, there would be “something terribly wrong with our political process”.
In the event, families burst into loud applause after hearing Sir John deliver a summary which including searing criticism of the failure to equip troops in Iraq properly and which stated that in the run-up to the war the alleged threat posed by Iraq was “presented with a certainty that was not justified.”
They also heard Sir John say that "Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were under-estimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate. The Government failed to achieve its stated objectives."
The Ministry of Defence was "slow" to respond to the threat from insurgents' roadside bombs, resulting in delays in the supply of armoured vehicles to protect troops which "should not have been tolerated".
This appeared to echo the comments of Richard and Maureen Bacon whose son Matthew died when his Snatch Land Rover was hit by an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) in Basra in September 2005.
Hourse before Sir John delivered his verdict, Mr Bacon told The Independent, that Tony Blair had delayed military planning and equipment procurement for the war “Because he didn’t want it to be seen that he was pre-empting any UN resolution. He was manipulating the system.”
The result, said Mr Bacon, was that his son died in a Snatch Land Rover with inadequate detection systems to protect against IEDs that could go through the insufficiently armoured vehicle “like a knife through butter.”
Mr Bacon said: “There were 27 incidents in which a serviceman got killed by an IED while travelling in a Snatch Land Rover. The first incident had been in 2004. With Snatch Land Rovers it was like Russian roulette.
“If the IED had been laid on that patrol’s route, and if the insurgents had people in place to set it off, then that vehicle was going to get hit.”
Mr Bacon, a retired police officer, added that there had to be “consequences” for leaders who sent soldiers to war unnecessarily.
“Because the consequences for the people they send is that some of them die doing the job they were told to do.”
As a result of the Chilcot Report, he added, “There has to be a basis for some kind of [legal] action, to ensure this never happens again. If not, I would say there is something terribly wrong with the political process.”
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
