Parliament tries again and again to influence federal politics – mostly without success. Even a move adopted on Monday does little to change that.
The ancient statue in the foyer does not yet make the provisional council chamber in Oerlikon a place of European discourse.
As was to be expected, the failure of the framework agreement with the EU at the end of May 2021 also had repercussions in the Zurich Cantonal Council. However, only six months later. Representatives from left to center tabled an urgent postulate. This calls on the government council to set up a round table between the federal government and the cantons.
The topic should be a “reliable and resilient cooperation” with the EU. The signatories are particularly annoyed by the fact that the Federal Council did not inform the cantons in good time before deciding to break off the negotiations. The common interests of the federal government and the cantons vis-à-vis the EU are unclear, the reasoning said.
European dialogue already established
The government council waved in its opinion. The Federal Council attaches importance to tackling the challenges together with the cantons, he wrote there. He pointed out that the so-called European Dialogue had been created almost ten years ago as part of the Conference of Cantonal Governments (KdK). Representatives of the Confederation and the cantons usually meet here every two months.
The answer goes on to say that there is no reason to doubt the purpose and importance of the European dialogue. This is already a round table between the federal government and the cantons on European issues.
District President Jacqueline Fehr (sp.) Added on Monday in the council. She herself not only takes part in the European dialogue, but also belongs to the European Commission of the KdK, which coordinates the positions of the cantons. Take the questions seriously, but the postulate has already been fulfilled.
Fehr also clearly opposed the postulants’ claim that the federal government broke off talks with the EU without consulting the cantons. The KdK regrets this decision, she said. But that does not mean that the cantons have not been heard. The Federal Council simply decided differently.
Opinions in the council were divided. The first signatory Michael Zeugin (Glp., Winterthur) accused the Federal Council of simply getting up from the negotiating table and running away. He even saw behavior towards the cantons as a violation of the constitution.
On the part of the SP, there was talk of a tragedy by the Federal Council, and the Greens also showed no understanding at all. The critics emphasized that the relationship with the EU is of the greatest importance for the economic canton of Zurich. An electricity agreement with the EU would be the best precaution against a shortage of electricity, said Thomas Forrer (Greens, Erlenbach).
For FDP and SVP, the altitude is simply not right. This requirement does not belong in the cantonal council, said Marcel Suter (svp., Thalwil). The other side should not complain if the SVP commented on their favorite topic, and he immediately dismissed the terms of the framework agreement for Switzerland as absolutely unacceptable.
Beat Habegger (fdp., Zurich) is unable to identify any scandal in the behavior of the federal government. It is right that the government council actively participates in the European debate within the framework of the KdK. The council transferred the postulate by 94 votes to 73. The report, which the government now has to present in a year, will not contain much more than what it has just said, Jacqueline Fehr had previously tried in vain to fend off.
Migration is not a matter for the canton
Another business dealt with federal politics; more precisely about the immigration initiative of the SVP adopted in 2014, which the federal councilors later implemented only lukewarm. In 2017, SVP National Councilor Gregor Rutz submitted an individual initiative as a Zurich elector. Its aim was to curb immigration by giving preference to cantonal residents.
Even the preliminary advisory commission agreed with the government’s position that the individual initiative violated superordinate law. She unanimously requested their rejection. Nevertheless, there was a debate. Ueli Bamert (svp., Zurich) wanted to change the personnel law with a tricky minority motion in order to curb immigration a little. Accordingly, vacancies in the cantonal administration should have been filled internally whenever possible, or the task should have been distributed among existing positions.
In other words: positions in the canton would only have been advertised externally and therefore for people abroad, if there was no other way. Bamert himself admitted in the council that it had little to do with Rutz’s individual initiative. The FDP ignored his call to liberals to counter the inflation of the state apparatus. This would restrict the selection of applications, said Martin Farner (fdp., Stammheim).
Economics director Carmen Walker Späh (fdp.) Added that, of course, if there is a vacancy, it will be checked whether the job can be done differently. There would be little influence on immigration, otherwise the proportion of foreign employees in the hospitality, construction and IT sectors is higher than in administration. The council rejected the motion by 124 votes to 37.