The mini-summit in Brussels ended sooner than might have been expected: Federal President Guy Parmelin (61) and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (62) needed significantly less than the two hours reserved for the meeting. That may be because the positions on the framework agreement are still quite far apart. Which also applies to the interpretation of what was discussed on Friday at all.
From Brussels ‘point of view, Switzerland wants to remove the three controversial points entirely from the agreement – wage protection, Union Citizens’ Directive, state aid (see box on page 4). That was “unacceptable” for the EU, said Commission spokesman Eric Mamer of the assembled crowd of journalists. At the same time he made it clear that one would not leave the negotiating table. The ball is now with the Federal Council.
Clear words from Parmelin
But Federal President Parmelin was also unusually clear. Differences with the EU? Considerable. Pressure from Brussels on Switzerland? Counterproductive. Brussels accusation that Bern did not propose any solutions in previous negotiations? That was done very well.
Parmelin said nothing about exactly what these suggestions were. Nor was it clear how things would go on from now on. A new appointment with von der Leyen has not been agreed.
No wonder the persistent secrecy is causing criticism. Not only parliamentarians are demanding transparency, but also ex-Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey: “The Federal Council’s non-communication is slowly but surely becoming a problem,” criticized the former Federal Councilor.
The Geneva woman states that Switzerland’s European policy is “lacking in leadership”. Instead of having the welfare of the country in mind, every Federal Councilor thinks of himself above all else. It is also incomprehensible that Foreign Minister Cassis never traveled to Brussels during the negotiations.
Quarreled Federal Council
This lack of leadership may have something to do with the fact that there was disagreement in the Federal Council on how to proceed – and it still does. The war of nerves in the Committee of Seven has broken out in full. Before Parmelin’s trip to Brussels, high federal officials expressed their hope that the negotiations would in future be lifted from the technical to the political level. This is the only way to achieve real solutions and make compromises. Ignazio Cassis had expressed himself in this regard on an earlier occasion.
But: Migration Minister Karin Keller-Sutter, Economics Minister Parmelin and Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis would then have to negotiate directly with Brussels. According to reports, Environment Minister Simonetta Sommaruga in particular advocated such an approach – but she did not get through.
The framework agreement is intended to embed the bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the EU in one framework. This regulates:
- How agreements adapt as EU law evolves.
- Who monitors that both sides apply the agreements correctly.
- How to ensure that both sides interpret the agreements in the same way.
- Who will judge if there is a dispute over these issues?
The last point in particular is controversial. In Switzerland they don’t want EU judges, that is, “foreign judges”, to decide disputes. The Federal Council was able to negotiate a court of arbitration. This would be made up of equal parts by Swiss and EU judges. The awards are binding. If the losing party does not implement this, the other party can take compensatory measures. However, these must be “proportionate”, so they must not be inappropriately drastic. Certain decisions could also be made by the European Court of Justice.
For example, Keller-Sutter does not believe that the adoption of the Union Citizens’ Directive can still be negotiated away. And the FDP magistrate does not want to get into a hopeless fight. The same goes for Guy Parmelin. So the Federal President declared on Friday that the negotiators were now in the lead again – although the technical negotiations had made little progress in recent months.
Despite all the confusion: A majority in the government is apparently of the opinion that Switzerland created clarity on Friday. The message to von der Leyen is clear, it is said from the environment of several Federal Councilors: Switzerland needs concessions on the three controversial points. “If Brussels doesn’t move, the agreement will have died.” Incidentally, Switzerland could certainly live with failure. What can also be heard from circles close to the government: Parmelin’s trip is considered by the administration as the last big gesture before the negotiations are broken off.
Does plan B come into play?
In the foreign department it is passed around that the Federal Council has a plan B developed in the individual departments. Some are said to have already started to work out alternative solutions at the dossier level. This is intended to equip the Swiss location in the event that Switzerland gradually loses its privileged access to the European market.
When asked about such a plan B, however, Federal President Guy Parmelin is tight-lipped. “The Federal Council always thinks in alternatives,” he says in an interview with SonntagsBlick.
However, the first preparations for an upcoming lane change are already known. In Alain Berset’s interior department, for example, the BAG has long been busy developing strategies against an impending supply bottleneck for medical goods in the event that the relevant market access agreement lapses. As early as March, the federal government confirmed the “measures to reduce supply risks”.
In business circles too, people are preparing for a prolonged state of no contract.
In those areas that are undisputed and in which EU law is evolving, the aim is to autonomously understand European legislation in the future. This with the intention that the gap between the Swiss and the European legal area does not become too large.
Because the EU remains Switzerland’s most important trading partner.
With or without a framework agreement.