Even without a valid protection clause for immigration, the advantages of the new agreements with the EU outweigh the disadvantages. However, in order to make them capable of winning a majority, a decisive improvement is required.
On-off relationship: Federal President Viola Amherd receives EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Bern.
We don't fit together particularly well: here the direct democratic small state in which minimal shifts in party strength are already considered a political earthquake, there the 450 million-state confederation in economic and political crisis mode. The fact that Italy currently has the most stable government of our neighboring countries says a lot about the current state of the EU. Accordingly, we are having a hard time with this partnership: sometimes we slam the door in the EU's face, sometimes we hug each other like we did on Friday in Bern. This on-off relationship is tiring, and some people have now had enough of the European political discourse.
Positioning yourself in this question of fate is difficult. Just how difficult was demonstrated on Friday: the longer the day lasted, the more the pitfalls of the material outcome of the negotiations became apparent. By the time Federal Councilor Beat Jans failed to explain how the protective clause worked in front of the media, the unctuous words of the two Presidents Ursula von der Leyen and Viola Amherd were forgotten.
In such moments it may seem tempting to concentrate, like the SVP, on the negative points of the agreement in order to reject the package in its entirety. And to wipe away the fears of impending negative consequences for the economy by pointing to entrepreneurial personalities like Magdalena Martullo-Blocher or the Partners Group founders, who are also against it. But is this the sober analysis that is needed now?
A vabanque game
The fact is that rejecting the treaties will worsen our access to the EU internal market. We would be risking a lot: 50 percent of our exports go to the EU, and Brussels has announced that it will allow existing contracts to erode without an institutional agreement. The consequences would be higher costs and more bureaucracy for the export industry as well as the loss of jobs in Switzerland. Our country responded to the EEA no vote in 1992 with voluntary adoption of the law and two bilateral negotiation packages. However, the EU would not get involved in this again. A no to the new contracts would therefore be a gamble in globally turbulent times.
But even a yes has its price. Access to the EU internal market now costs us 350 million francs per year, and we must dynamically adopt EU law under threat of compensatory measures. There will still be no independent control of immigration, as stated in our constitution. The protective clause is intended to become more effective, but whether it will ever have a dampening effect remains highly questionable. On the other hand, the exceptions tailored to Switzerland in the EU Citizens' Directive and state aid or the possibility of participation in EU research programs are positive.
The opponents are ahead
Overall, the contracts are better than the failed framework agreement, and from the current perspective, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. However, the Federal Council should accept the FDP proposal and add an opt-out clause to the agreement. If accepted by the people, the treaties would then be subject to an optional referendum again after a certain period of time, as was the case with Bilaterals I. We would then know whether the contracts have proven successful in practice – for example in the case of EU compensatory measures – or not. And she couldn't quit.
Such an option would increase the agreement's chances at the ballot box. And that is sorely needed. The supporters have so far left the field to the opponents of the treaties and have to make up for a considerable argumentative deficit. Their requests to speak since Friday still show that there is still a lot of room for improvement: cloudily they rave about foresight, a liberation or a way out of the impasse. You won't win a voting battle that way – especially not in European politics.
Because the debate about how sovereign a small state can still be in a networked world is essential for our country. And susceptible to an emotional discourse of slogans, as past ballots have shown. In contrast to the short voting battles before the EEA and the mass immigration vote, this time we have a lot of time until the referendum. We should use them to weigh up the pros and cons of the contracts. Thoroughly and with cool pragmatism.
An article from the «»
