“The Federal Council must first solve the domestic problem”

Mr. Pfister, you once stood on the far right within your party. Now you are propagating an expansion of wage protection, higher pensions and reduced premiums. Will you turn left before the next election?

It is logical that this question comes from NZZ journalists. Other newspapers accuse me of being too right-wing. In that respect I feel very comfortable there. I really think it’s something else that’s irritating the journalists and the other parties: the center suddenly dares to step out of the role of the eternal, good majority procurer. We are not the docile modeling clay between the poles, but stand up for our concerns and ideas. That doesn’t suit everyone. I take that as a good sign.

Your party also plays an important role in European politics. And here, too, it seems to us that you are moving a bit far to the left: recently you have been pushing for an expansion of the accompanying measures for the free movement of people in order to eliminate the blockade with the EU. Why is that?

This has nothing to do with left or right, but with a very banal question: can we push through a new agreement domestically without being able to guarantee compliance with the high level of wages and working conditions in this country? I am convinced that this is impossible. And I can put your mind at rest: We are not only demanding safeguards for wage protection, but also against immigration into the social security system. That’s why we’re offering to extend wage protection if employers and unions agree.

What are you thinking specifically? For example, do you want to introduce minimum wages through the back door after the people have rejected it?

Switzerland has always supported the principles of the free movement of people with the EU. It is important that the Federal Council now negotiate safeguard clauses so that Switzerland can independently introduce new measures or tighten existing ones in the event of negative developments. Similar reservations must be possible with the social services if, contrary to expectations, an above-average immigration should take place in them. In both areas, Switzerland, with its high wage level and strong welfare state, has legitimate protection needs; the EU must recognize this.

Your demands go far: In fact, you want to exclude the key issues relating to the free movement of people from the dynamic adoption of the law and from the influence of the European Court of Justice. All diplomats say the same thing: This position is absolutely unacceptable for the EU, so a solution will never succeed.

You see, this is exactly the problem: The new talks with the EU, which the Federal Council has started, seem to be leading back to the old impasse. One talks about abstract rules instead of concrete problems. We are about to repeat the mistakes of the past. I don’t see how we can achieve a solution on this basis that will find a majority in Switzerland.

You are playing a double game: you act as if you want an agreement with the EU, but make unrealistic demands – and finally criticize the Federal Council for not finding a solution.

You accuse me of considerable cynicism. . . I clearly reject that. The center wants a pragmatic solution, but we don’t believe that we can achieve this on the path that the Federal Council has taken. In February he decided to hold exploratory talks simultaneously with the EU and the main forces at home. We would have welcomed it if he had focused more on domestic politics first.

And you think the EU would have waited patiently?

I don’t know, but I do know that today we are still miles away from a consensus on domestic policy. This is bad. The Federal Council must first solve the domestic problems before talking to Brussels. I don’t understand why he doesn’t hold talks with domestic political actors at least as intensively as those with the EU. To date, there is no solution in sight for the protection of wages and social security that would be supported by the relevant forces in Switzerland. I’m not only thinking of the trade unions, but also of the trade association. In these circumstances, how can our negotiators make credible proposals to the EU? The EU must inevitably fear that such a solution would fail again in Switzerland.

There were certainly domestic talks. Former State Secretary Mario Gattiker spoke to all relevant groups on behalf of the Federal Council. Isn’t that enough?

Nothing against Mario Gattiker, I have a lot of respect for him – but institutionally he’s not the right man for the talks I mean. This is a matter for the Federal Councilors themselves, which cannot be delegated. It is their job alone to sit down at the table with the social partners and the cantons and to wrestle with them as long and as hard until a viable solution is found.

They are directly attacking the economics minister responsible for wage protection, SVP Federal Councilor Guy Parmelin. . .

. . . no, the criticism is directed at the Federal Council as a whole. The seven really have to tackle this task together.

You submitted a proposal to the Foreign Policy Commission that demands exactly this and found a majority with the support of the left: the Federal Council should negotiate with the social partners. Is that a vote of no confidence?

It’s an order. Although I am quite amazed that such an order is even necessary. The Federal Council should actually know for itself that it is responsible and that it must finally tackle the domestic talks with the utmost urgency. There is no other way. How can he stand his ground in Brussels if he is not secure in domestic politics? Instead, he has them probed without seriously kneeling himself in. He does too little to hold the social partners accountable. The Federal Council does not assume its managerial responsibility. He got us into this mess.

Because he broke off the negotiations for the framework agreement in May 2021?

No, that was the right decision at that point in time. I mean the fatal events of 2018, when the Federal Council, led by FDP representatives Johann Schneider-Ammann and Ignazio Cassis, smashed the social partnership – I can’t put it any other way. Back then, he literally pushed the unions away from the negotiating table by publicly ridiculing wage protection and promising unacceptable concessions. To date, the Federal Council has not succeeded in making amends for this mistake. He is doing too little to restore trust.

In 2020, Parliament introduced bridging benefits for older unemployed people to build a bridge for unions and bring them back into the European political alliance. It did little.

I’m not surprised that the NZZ sees it that way. But it was the liberal Federal Councilor Karin Keller-Sutter who launched this proposal at the time. And she was absolutely right: Who knows whether we would have won the vote on the SVP’s dismissal initiative so clearly if unemployment in old age had been a big issue.

According to your logic, the unions are given a veto position: as long as they are not satisfied, the Federal Council cannot do anything. Is that a smart negotiating position?

In Switzerland there is only one veto power: the people. And I don’t see how we can come to a solution that can convince a majority at the ballot box until it is clear that wages and social security are protected. However, I do not rule out the possibility that, if necessary, we will have to move forward without the unions. In this case, however, we need really effective safeguard clauses. Otherwise we don’t stand a chance against the unions and against the SVP, which always gets in the way when it comes to EU issues.

Do you expect the unions to stick to their tough position?

Difficult to say. Perhaps they think it’s still too early to back down from their maximum demands. I could imagine that Pierre-Yves Maillard (the president of the trade union federation; editor’s note) will soon appear a little more conciliatory. As a candidate for the Council of States in the canton of Vaud, who is benefiting greatly from the bilateral agreements, it will not help him if the impression is given that he is blocking any progress in European politics.

Assuming a solution were found for wages and welfare, would you agree to dynamic adoption and dispute resolution? Your party has major concerns about the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

It depends on the total package. The further the exceptions and the safeguard clauses go, the more we can accept the ECJ. In some technical areas it is not a problem anyway if we adopt binding EU rules. However, there are also sensitive areas in which we cannot accept this because there is simply too much at stake. What annoys me the most is that we have to blame ourselves for the persistence of the EU.

What do you mean?

It has been a long time since the first complaints came from foreign companies who did not agree with the application of individual accompanying measures. The EU has therefore made demands on us, which we have always rejected for purely legal reasons. Because there was no dispute resolution, we could do it that way. Until the EU demanded binding rules of the game. If we had looked for pragmatic solutions together at the time, instead of insisting unilaterally on a legal point of view, we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble.

Could it be that history is repeating itself today? Again, Switzerland is ignoring long-standing EU demands – will we regret that again later?

Yes, there is a risk. That worries me. Nevertheless, there is no point in hastily negotiating a new agreement that has no political chance. That is why I am urging the Federal Council to finally conduct serious domestic negotiations.

But what about the EU? Why should she suddenly lend a hand to solutions that she has always rejected so far?

We have to approach things in a new way: not on the abstract, institutional level, but concretely, with the factual issues. The elephant in the room are the social challenges of the free movement of people. Switzerland must explain to the EU under which conditions a solution is possible and under which not.

And if things fail, if the EU slowly allows the bilateral agreements to erode – what then? Do we then join the EEA? Or can we afford to fall back on the old free trade agreement?

We cannot come up with a Plan B without even having a Plan A that has the necessary domestic support. For the center, the goal is clear: maintaining the bilateral agreements while taking on social responsibility. The Federal Council really needs to move forward now. If the board is flirting with postponing the unpleasant topic until after the elections next year: I think that’s a rather bad idea – also with regard to the Federal Council elections in December 2023. The incumbent members would certainly not improve their chances of re-election by doing so.

Is that a threat?

No, good advice. In the overall re-election of the Bundesrat, his track record in the EU dossier will of course play a role for Parliament.