Swiss senators flex muscles over EU treaty package
Switzerland’s Senate last week wrapped up its examination of the new EU treaty package, laying bare political divisions and signalling that parliament intends to shape, not simply endorse the government’s deal with Brussels. An analysis of the autumn session.
Select your language
Generated with artificial intelligence.
Listening:
Swiss senators flex muscles over EU treaty package
It is well past 8pm in the Senate chamber in Bern, day one of the European Union (EU) debate in the Swiss parliament. The 46 senators have already spent more than five hours deliberating. Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis, too, has been speaking for quite some time about the results of the negotiations with Brussels. He lists all the key points once again. Each one is a negotiating success, he says, but also a milestone on Switzerland’s unique path, which has grown ever longer over the years. The Swiss-EU package of agreements, known as Bilaterals III,External link runs to 2,228 pages.
The foreign minister takes off his reading glasses. He looks up from his paper and scans the chamber. He leaves his prepared speech on the table in front of him and sketches a picture of Switzerland in 2026 in short sentences: “Brussels is not waiting for Switzerland, nor will they wait for Switzerland at the UN in New York or in Mercosur. But we are being heard. Little Switzerland ranks among the world’s 20 largest economies. That gives us a certain strength. But to retain that strength, we need markets,” he declares.
Moments of passion
This is no spectacle. But however measured the statement may seem, it is a moment of unfiltered passion for Swiss politics. When it comes to the EU treaty package that is something that has been distinctly lacking so far, particularly from the Federal Council, Switzerland’s executive body.
Several similar moments follow in the Senate in what was a thoroughly fascinating debate on the new EU treaties. Senators offered a degree of nuance to the debate that had previously been conducted in a lacklustre or simplistic manner. New aspects came to light, while familiar ones were examined anew.
During the debate on the Swiss-EU treaty package, Justice Minister Beat Jans also mentioned the Swiss Abroad. An extract from his speech: “It is important to look at the issue from the other side as well. What applies to EU citizens in Switzerland also applies to Swiss nationals in the EU, and there are quite a few of them: 460,000 Swiss nationals live in the EU; that is more than half of all Swiss Abroad.
Among them are many young people who are on exchange programmes or studying in the EU. The aim is to safeguard these people’s rights so they can live in EU member states with virtually the same rights as locals, so they can take up employment without additional administrative hurdles, and so they can study for the same tuition fees as Europeans. You must not forget this when discussing this package.”
EU treaties as a matter of faith
How would Brussels react if parliament or Swiss voters were to oppose the treaty package one day? Nobody knows that either. Much of the debate has become a question of faith. Some believe the EU has Switzerland’s best interests at heart and will remain fair, while others fear Switzerland is surrendering too much to Brussels.
“Which sovereign country delegates important parts of its legislation to a foreign country and then pays for it as well?” declares Hannes Germann, a senator from the right-wing Swiss People’s Party.
Franziska Roth, a senator from the left-wing Social Democratic Party, asks: “Just because the treaties are many pages long, does that mean they’re a sham?” She adds where she believes the 2,228 pages come from: “It’s called the rule of law”.
Clash with federal structures
Beat Rieder, a Centre Party senator from canton Valais, then explains why, in his view, a dynamic adoption of legislation [Switzerland taking over future EU rules in certain areas] poses a threat to Swiss democracy, drawing historical parallels that extend as far back as colonial treaties. “This treaty is on a collision course with federal structures; it undermines them in every single area in which we dynamically adopt legislation, and it destroys the Federal Court’s authority to administer justice independently in Switzerland,” he says.
It is striking to see who is now showing their hand. Opposition to the package comes from the political centre. It is becoming clear that the Centre Party and the centre-right Radical-Liberal Party are divided on this crucial issue for Switzerland and for the upcoming elections. And they can no longer hide the fact.
The following three days of debate focus on the details: security deposits for European companies wishing to operate in Switzerland, European trains on Swiss tracks, and a levy that European immigrants in Switzerland are to pay – “like a visitor’s tax”.
A show of strength by parliament
The Senate has taken a hard line on immigration. The right wing has introduced stricter measures – amendments to a treaty that has already been finalised. Is that permitted? Is the proposal to deny permanent residence to anyone who has previously received social assistance compatible with the free movement of persons? What about the suggestion that immigrants must provide a criminal record check? No, warns Justice Minister Beat Jans. The Senate passes the measure anyway.
This is not the government’s hour, but the Senate’s. At times the exercise feels almost demonstrative, a reminder that in Switzerland it is parliament, not the executive, that makes the laws. And that prerogative is what is being defended.
“A solution that divides the country creates no legal certainty, only conflict,” warns Petra Gössi, a senator from canton Schwyz, calling for compromise. And compromise does exist. Senators leave in place all the agreements that employers and trade unions had painstakingly negotiated with one another to protect Switzerland’s high wages.
Senators split over cantonal majority
The representatives of the cantons remain divided on the question of the voting procedure. Does voting on the EU treaty package also require a cantonal majority – approval by most cantons as well as most voters – or is a simple popular majority sufficient?
Since the smaller, more conservative cantons carry greater weight with a cantonal majority, this reduces the chances of the EU-Swiss package at the ballot box. This makes the issue highly political.
“You can sense that this issue gets under people’s skin; it strikes at the very heart of who we are,” said Cassis ahead of the decisive vote. It is unclear whether he was referring to the essence of Switzerland or to the people in the chamber who were wrestling with the issue for three days.
It is also a delicate matter. Senators represent their canton – and a political party. To whom do they feel more beholden? One senator from Zug is so torn that he abstains. In the end, the Senate votes in favour of the cantonal majority by 23 votes to 17. Support also come from the left and the centre.
This sends a clear message to the House of Representatives, which will discuss the EU treaty package in the winter session. Lawmakers in the lower chamber are expected to reject the Senate’s decision. This will lead to a dispute over the role of federalism in Switzerland, a potentially decisive test of unity.
A clear rebuff to the authorities
Earlier, the Senate had already given the government a clear demonstration of who held power. The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, under pressure from the Swiss footwear brand On, had relaxed the “Swissness” rules – which set out when a product can be labelled Swiss – without consulting the legislature. The Senate rectified this with a decisive vote bordering on protest: 32 votes to 5.
The Senate has also set down a first marker on the issue of banking regulation, resisting pressure from the once-powerful banking lobby. It is a simple question, said Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter: “Who should bear the risks that a major bank takes abroad? Is it the shareholders or also the taxpayers in Switzerland?” The Senate agreed. UBS, Switzerland’s biggest bank, will now have to underpin its foreign subsidiaries with 90% equity capital. Here, too, the House of Representatives must still give its position.
Defence spending was also a major topic in the recent session of parliament. “Switzerland has taken a long time to consider the question of how to strengthen its security. A question for which we have no time,” warned Defence Minister Martin Pfister. However, the idea of a debt-financed defence fund was met with scepticism, not least because a commission had recently revealed that the contracts for the purchase of the F-35 fighter jets had scarcely been read on the Swiss side. Yet urgency sometimes trumps public sentiment. The funding has been approved for the time being. But there is a growing impression that the battle over the F-35s has only just begun.
Join the debate:
External Content
Parliament approved the free trade agreement with Mercosur. Farmers were won over with CHF500 million ($600 million), while the left-wing and Green parties were persuaded with CHF25 million ($30 million) to protect the Amazon rainforest.
Parliament has rejected the “Democracy Initiative” that aims to simplify naturalisation. Only the Social Democratic Party and the Greens support the proposal.
Both chambers of parliament want to ban the import of fur produced using cruel methods. They have also put forward an indirect counter-proposal to the popular initiative calling for a ban on the import of foie gras, recommending that the initiative be rejected.
Edited by Pauline Turuban/Adapted from German by Patrick Julian Huwyler/sb
In compliance with the JTI standards
More: SWI swissinfo.ch certified by the Journalism Trust Initiative
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here . Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.