In Swiss-EU relations, is the era of cordiality over?

Swiss President Guy Parmelin and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sign a package of bilateral agreements between the European Union and Switzerland, in Brussels on March 2, 2026. Keystone / Peter Klaunzer

Relations between Bern and Brussels are shaky again. Both sides are unsettling each other with their unpredictability. Swissinfo examines what lies behind these latest tensions.

It’s a little bit like a maritime emergency. In a situation of distress, everything else has to wait. Coastguards issue a “Mayday” order for radio silence, so all traffic stops on the frequency being used by those directly involved in the rescue operation.

A similar understanding exists between the Swiss government and the European Commission: as long as the latest agreements in the Swiss-EU package have not been ratified by their respective parliaments, there should be no interference. This is what Switzerland and the EU agreed in June 2025.

“Mindful of the sensitivity of the ratification process […] both sides should support the successful completion of this process while strengthening their bilateral relations,” states the joint declarationExternal link signed last year by Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis and EU Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič.

In the declaration, the European Union and Switzerland also pledge to “cooperate closely and in good faith.”

The path to this new package was long and bumpy. It took 13 years and 200 rounds of negotiations, including a shipwreck: in 2021, the Swiss government broke off talks, which prompted retaliatory measures from the EU.

It is therefore understandable that the negotiating teams want this intricate package of agreements to make it safely through the final stretch of water and reach shore without any interference.

What is the current state of play?

In March this year, the government submitted the package to parliament. Both chambers are set to debate it later this year, with a popular vote expected in 2027 or later. The political debate is now centred on how the public should vote: on the package as a whole, or on its individual components?

A particular bone of contention is whether such a vote would require a majority of the cantons or just a simple popular majority as proposed by the government. This question alone has triggered the launch of a popular initiative, the so-called Compass Initiative.

The whole process has gone much more smoothly on the EU side. In February 2026, all 27 member states endorsed the package of agreements.

What’s the EU done?

In April this year, the EU took two steps that have put Switzerland to the test. First, it presented a plan under which cross-border workers who lose their job in Switzerland would receive Swiss unemployment benefits. The European Parliament still needs to formally confirm this decision. According to the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, this could cost Switzerland up to CHF900 million ($1.1 billion) per year.

Second, under its new steel tariffs policy, the EU failed to exempt Switzerland from the increases, unlike European Economic Area (EEA) member states. Instead of the previous 25%, Swiss steel exports could face a tariff of 50% if they exceed a certain quota starting in July. The Swiss steel industry has reacted with alarm, calling it a “de facto export ban”.

In an interview with Swiss public radio SRF, Swiss President Guy Parmelin struck a firm tone by saying: “I told the EU: we now have steel problems. And now we have to deal with this unemployment benefits issue as well. Both come at the same time as the package is to be debated in parliament. I can only say that this does not help.”

How does the government react?

The government plans to bring the issue of unemployment benefits for cross-border workers before the so-called joint committee. This is the lowest-level mechanism used when disputes arise between the EU and Switzerland, or when there is a “need for interpretation”, as diplomats put it. “I expect the committee will face some tough discussions,” said Parmelin.

The timing on the EU side, however, is purely coincidental. “The EU has been debating this proposal for years,” explained Astrid Epiney, a professor of European law. “Only now have EU member states finally reached an agreement.” She adds that the regulation also affected other countries with large numbers of cross-border workers, such as Luxembourg and Germany.

On the dispute over steel tariffs, Parmelin said: “This is unacceptable. We must find solutions as well as a compromise that is acceptable for Switzerland.”

The Swiss president also struck a tough tone on the joint declaration on transitional arrangements. Speaking to SRF, he said: “We had agreed that as long as the public has not voted on the package, no new uncertainties should arise. And now, within a short period of time, two sensitive issues have landed on our table.”

‘Cooperation in good faith’: Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis and EU Chief Diplomat Maroš Šefčovič in Brussels in 2025. Keystone

What has Switzerland done?

The EU knows this, yet its patience is being tested each time a decision has to be made. In Switzerland, nothing – not even a government signature – is ever set in stone until the final word has been spoken. And that final word lies with the public.

This applies not only to the agreements with the EU. The Swiss public is currently caught up in a referendum campaign over the “No to ten million“ immigration initiative launched by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party.

This initiative would, at least in the long run, put the free movement of persons in question. If the public were to approve it, Switzerland would ultimately have to introduce measures under the free movement agreement to limit immigration from the EU.

A statement by cabinet minister Beat Jans has drawn some attention.

Jans is Switzerland’s justice minister and is campaigning against this proposal on behalf of the government. Speaking on SRF’s political debate programme Arena, he said Switzerland would have to start challenging the free movement of persons immediately if the public voted “yes”.

“We need to tackle the free movement of people before it’s too late”: Beat Jans on “Arena” discussing the “10-million-strong Switzerland”. SRF

“The termination of the free movement of persons agreement is enshrined in our constitution,” Jans said. “Once the population reaches ten million, there is no room for interpretation. However, we would already have to tackle the free movement before that point. We need to take measures to ensure it does not come to that. For example, we would have to tell Europeans coming to work here that they cannot bring their families.”

This statement signals that work to dismantle the free movement of persons would start immediately if the People’s Party’s initiative were approved by voters. In concrete terms, this would mean halting family reunificationExternal link for newly arrived migrants.

His words were clearly aimed at a domestic audience. Jans added: “If we do this, we will risk the entire bilateral path [with the EU].”

The other question is whether the statement was well thought through from a foreign policy perspective. The text of the initiative itself does not call for immediate action on the free movement of persons. Yet, if the “No to ten million” initiative is approved on June 14, the EU will want to know exactly what to expect from Switzerland on free movement. “Outwardly, things will probably remain quiet,” said EU specialist Epiney. “But that does not mean the EU is not following the process closely.”

How does the EU respond?

Swissinfo put two questions to the EU delegation in Bern. First: how does the EU respond to Parmelin’s accusation that the alliance was not acting in good faith? And second: how does the EU feel about Jans’ statement that Switzerland would consider halting family reunification if the People’s Party’s initiative were approved?

The EU delegation in Switzerland did not respond to either question. In Brussels, the chief spokesperson of the European Commission also declined to comment on the steel tariffs when asked by the newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Is this an indication that the era of kind words and courtesy is over? Well, that’s one interpretation. Epiney offers another. “The EU’s strategy is to interfere as little as possible in domestic affairs, including in member states,” she said, adding that the EU only issues statements if there is a real problem.

Seen in this light, the problem currently lies mainly on one side, namely the one that speaks out.

Edited by Samuel Jaberg. Adapted from German by Billi Bierling/gw