Everyone finds something that doesn’t suit them in the framework agreement. From right (sovereignty!) To left (wage protection!), The agreement is gleefully disheveled and talked to death. It would be a miracle if Switzerland and the EU were to sign this treaty.
But what would happen if the deal was off the table? What are the likely consequences? A document is circulating in the administration, drawn up by all seven departments, which outlines the answers to these questions. And that shows which countermeasures Switzerland can take.
These are answers that the Federal Council prefers to keep to itself. At the request of Central National Councilor Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter (57), the National Council’s Foreign Policy Commission (APK) demanded insight into the secret paper at the beginning of May (Sunday view reported). On Wednesday, however, the state government decided not to obey this request. This is confirmed by several well-informed sources. The secret paper remains secret, the foreign politicians of the National Council grope in the dark. For now, at least.
Cooperation within the Federal Council difficult
In European policy, it is not just cooperation within the Federal Council that is difficult. The cooperation between the state government and parliament has also been tense for a long time, says APK President Tiana Angelina Moser (42, GLP). “The Federal Council does not want to provide the necessary breadth of information about the framework agreement and the consequences of a rejection. But that is a mandatory requirement for such an important decision. ” Now it is up to your commission to decide how to proceed.
There are signs of confrontation: «The parliamentary law gives us the right to demand all information. And I do not believe that the Commission will insist on this right, ”says the Zurich SP National Councilor Fabian Molina (30). In the end, according to the parliamentary law, the Council Presidium would have to decide this conflict between government and parliament.
Time is of the essence: the Federal Council is unequivocally demanding that Brussels be accommodated. Otherwise, he seems willing to bury the deal once and for all. To prevent this, Central Federal Councilor Viola Amherd (58) launched a rescue plan at the last minute this week, as the “Tages-Anzeiger” reported.
Currently, the free movement of people between Switzerland and the EU is limited to employees and the self-employed – people who are gainfully employed. Within the EU countries, however, the Union Citizens Directive (UBRL) applies, which gives EU citizens more extensive rights. The Federal Council fears immigration to the social welfare system should Switzerland have to adopt the UBRL. Two examples illustrate this.
Case one:
Today, an EU citizen who loses his job after three years in Switzerland is entitled to unemployment benefits and then to six months of social assistance. After this period he has to leave the country. With the UBRL, the person would have unlimited entitlement to social assistance.
Case two:
Today, citizens of the European Union in Switzerland can lose their residence permit if they receive social assistance over a longer period of time. According to the UBRL, however, EU citizens have the right to permanent residence if they have lived in another EU country for five years – even if they receive social assistance from then on.
Forecasts are not possible
Amherd starts with the Union Citizens’ Directive (UBRL), the biggest point of dispute between Bern and Brussels. The entire Federal Council insists on explicitly excluding the adoption of large parts of the UBRL in the contract – not least because of fear of immigration to the social welfare institutions. Defense Minister Amherd is now pleading for a protective mechanism: The federal government could, according to her proposal, if too many people from the EU receive social assistance in Switzerland, the agreement could again be suspended. It is uncertain whether a majority of the government and ultimately the EU will agree.
It is also uncertain which costs could be incurred for the welfare work at all. “Reliable forecasts about the effects of adopting the UBRL are not possible,” writes the responsible State Secretariat for Migration. The amount of the costs cannot be quantified because it is “dependent on numerous variables”.
A piece of information that leaves a number of parliamentarians confused. “I am not surprised that the Federal Council does not present any specific figures. It fits the blind flight of the Federal Council in the European dossier, ”says National Councilor Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter. She is increasingly wondering on what basis the government makes its decisions.
Churches need clarity
Basics that the communities would also like to know. After all, they ultimately pay for a large part of the social assistance. SVP Council of States Hannes Germann (64) is president of the community association. He says: “Our association cannot quantify the financial consequences of taking over the UBRL. That makes it much more difficult to make a decision on this issue. ” On average, 60 percent of the social assistance expenses were incurred in the communities, according to the Schaffhauser. «That would hardly be any different in the case of the UBRL. It would be all the more important if the federal government made at least an estimate. ”
Whether with a view to parliament or the municipalities: the Federal Council cannot provide some information, and it does not want to provide others.