European policy: Federal Councilor Cassis continues to fight

Ignazio Cassis remains Foreign Minister voluntarily and is therefore responsible for Switzerland’s biggest construction site: relations with the EU. On Friday, the Federal Council soberingly explained what the options are.

Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis is convinced that the best way to find a solution is with the EU.

Valentin Flauraud / Keystone

He could have had it easier. When the Federal Council proceeded to allocate the departments this week, Ignazio Cassis had the chance to make a fresh start. After five thorny years, who could blame him if he had given up the Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA)? In doing so, he could have left behind the most difficult and thankless dossier that Swiss politics has to offer: European politics.

But the Liberal is not a man to run away. Cassis remains in the FDFA of his own free will, determined to assume his responsibilities, continue the work begun and end the relationship crisis with the EU. It is rumored that Cassis is convinced that he is best placed to find a solution with Brussels. In recent months he has succeeded in intensifying contacts with important EU representatives, in particular with Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the Commission.

It remains difficult nonetheless. The risk of falling is great, but Cassis is undeterred. On Friday he brought the draft of the new Europe report to the Federal Council. The timing is right: 30 years after the no to the EEA, 20 years after the entry into force of the Bilaterals I and 1.5 years after the negotiations on the framework agreement were broken off, the paper provides an assessment of Switzerland’s position in Europe.

Higher price for special route

The new goal is the same as the old one: securing and expanding the bilateral path. The Federal Council confirms that the current form of relations – somewhere between pure free trade and the EEA – is “clearly” the best option for Switzerland. It offers unhindered access to the EU’s internal market in selected areas without seriously calling into question political independence.

From a Swiss point of view, things should go on like this. But the EU is now demanding a higher price for this special solution. She wants to lay down institutional rules of the game, above all for dispute resolution and the assumption of rights. The Federal Council is ready to respond if Switzerland’s vital interests are exempted from the new rules. “No immigration into social welfare, no undermining of wages and working conditions”: This is how it is outlined in the report. The aim is to exclude sensitive issues relating to the free movement of persons from the influence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

«Completely hollowed out»

The report makes the seriousness of the situation clear with new sharpness. From the Federal Council’s point of view, the bilateral path is in acute jeopardy. If no agreement is reached, the EU will continue to refrain from entering into any new agreements and will only update the existing ones as it sees fit. In the words of the Federal Council, this would lead to “the foundation of the bilateral path being completely eroded” over time. The current level of integration would be “gradually dismantled”. This development was “unsystematic and slow”. In the long term, however, the new report leaves no doubt that the previous royal road would wither away to a dead end.

Regarding the status of the ongoing exploratory talks with the EU, the report specifies a significant advance: The EU is willing to legally define the exceptions requested by Switzerland in such a way that they would in no way be subject to the interpretation competence of the ECJ. However, the Federal Council still sees “open questions” in various areas. It is unclear when the explorations will continue. The Federal Council will probably have to decide in 2023 whether it wants to start new negotiations. In the report, however, he is remarkably confident: “As soon as the field has been sufficiently marked out, the next step will be for the Federal Council to issue a mandate for negotiations.”

Resistance to agricultural liberalization

The Europe report also assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the possible alternatives. The Federal Council makes it soberingly clear that it does not really see a plan B. First and foremost, he examined a pure free trade model. This would essentially reduce Switzerland’s relationship with the EU to the abolition of trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas. Bern and Brussels concluded a free trade agreement (FTA) in 1972, but this is not up to date.

A modern UK-style FTA would go further. However, the Federal Council is skeptical. There is still potential in the agricultural sector, where trade barriers are high. Domestic resistance to liberalization would, however, be considerable. Some further cooperation with the EU would be possible, for example in research. It is hardly realistic that Switzerland could continue to participate in the freedom to travel (Schengen) and asylum cooperation (Dublin). The EU makes this dependent on the free movement of persons.

Formally, Switzerland would gain autonomy with this approach. Because of the importance of the internal market, however, it would presumably continue to be closely based on EU regulation. According to estimates, 40-60 percent of federal law is already influenced by EU law. The Federal Council notes that what is known as autonomous re-enactment could become even more important in the future. In addition, Switzerland would probably give EU citizens extensive access to the labor market even without the free movement of persons, so that the economy can recruit the skilled workers it needs. In short: For the government, the advantages of the approach do not outweigh the disadvantages.

On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the vote, the GLP and the Swiss European Movement have relaunched the debate on EEA accession. Switzerland would thus participate more extensively in the internal market than today, particularly in the service sector. However, this option also has serious shortcomings for the Federal Council. The room for maneuver is more restricted than the further participation in the internal market justifies. Only all EEA states together could reject a legal act. In addition, solutions tailored to Switzerland would hardly be possible.

Accession to the EU is not a serious option for the Bundesrat. The conclusions are not yet definitive. The Europe report is now going to the two foreign policy committees of Parliament for consultation.

source site-111