More European air

Switzerland is increasingly less of an island in the midst of the European Union. Having formally entered the Schengen zone past December 12 and joined Dublin cooperation, the Swiss have become more “European” than they are willing to admit, which makes them increasingly “Euro-compatible”. To be honest, if our small Country closed its borders, surrounded as it is by the EU Member States, it couldn’t continue to exist. For a long time already, Switzerland has been earning one every two of its Francs abroad. Our present wellbeing – that hasn’t always been the rule, since in the past centuries a large number of Swiss citizens were forced to emigrate due to the extremely poor rural areas – largely depends on our relations with the bordering Countries. Indeed, this is the reason why in 1999 Switzerland signed bilateral agreements with the EU that simplified the admission of Swiss products to the European market. Even trade unions – which used to claim that opening land borders would trigger lower wages and social slide – came to the same conclusion. Their sole intransigent stance justly regards the accompanying measures to prevent ‘wage dumping’ and the worsening of workers’ social situation.UNIA trade union, the propellant of Switzerland’s Trade Union federation, upholds the principle of the free circulation of people, on which Swiss citizens will cast their vote next February 8. Saturday December 13, in Bern, UNIA delegates endorsed (with 89 ayes and only 6 abstentions) the EU agreement on free circulation and its extension to Bulgaria and Romania. Major political parties support the agreement’s implementation and extension. The UDC (the Centre-wing Democratic Union), the Party of former Federal councillor Christoph Blocher, and of the new Federal councillor Ueli Maurer, renown for his nationalistic and anti-European stances, is divided. Pro – “Blocher” UDC- party members point to “the free circulation of the unemployed, the beggars and other hucksters”, while the economic and pragmatic wing is in favour of the agreement’s implementation. As relates to the Convention of Dublin, that came into force in Switzerland in December, even though it favours those Countries that EU members, does cause some problems to those Countries located on the margins of Europe. The Convention prevents asylum-seekers from filing requests in more than one Country simultaneously or subsequently to his removal. Accordingly, in case of rejection, asylum-seekers are not permitted to file application in another Country that signed the Convention. A number of left-wing MPs voiced their criticism of Dublin, although they accept the Convention in general terms. This stand is shared also by a number of organizations providing assistance to refugees like OSAR, that endorsed Schengen/Dublin a few years ago “with unenthusiastic consensus”, in the belief that the Agreements constituted a decisive step in breaking away from the solitary path that Switzerland had undertaken as relates to refugees.Today, OSAR is more critical. It expressed its disappointment over the Federal authorities’ implementation modality of the Convention. The Organization is concerned that some asylum-seekers might be prevented from enjoying measures aimed at the fair processing of their application. (Cf. ECRE and the European Refugee Program – www.ecre.org) In practical terms, given its central location in the EU map, Switzerland will benefit from the Dublin regulation – the Confederation will only be dealing with air passengers entering the Country for family reunification -, while migrant pressure is exerted especially on Countries located in the South and the East of the European Union. However, tensions do persist, since excessive pressure is being exerted also on EU bordering Countries, that are often unable to guarantee adequate support and protection to asylum-seekers. As relates to the Church in Switzerland, its position as relates to asylum-seekers’ removal is clear. And it remains on guard, given the envisaged measures.