Why the Case for Switzerland's New EU Treaties Is Economic, Not Emotional
The Council of States has approved the treaty package. The case for a double majority rests on the fact that the consequences for direct democracy are real — and so is the cost of saying no.
Guy Parmelin is leaving at the right time. The outgoing president announced his resignation without any visible nostalgia for diplomatic protocol — and, one suspects, with considerable relief that he will no longer be in office when Switzerland votes on the new EU treaties. As a sitting federal councillor, the SVP man would have had to campaign for a Yes he almost certainly does not believe in.
That referendum campaign is going to be emotional. Perhaps as emotional as 1992, when the EWR question threatened to split the country. Shortly before that vote, the situation nearly escalated: Adolf Ogi and Arnold Koller campaigned for EWR membership in the Schwyz Federal Charter Archive while hundreds of opponents protested loudly outside. Inside, a bearded man named Treichler launched into a tirade against the federal councillors. Ogi delivered an equally fiery reply and declared: "We only want what is best for the country."
The best for the country. Both supporters and opponents of the new EU treaties claim that mantle. Both argue from fundamental pillars of Swiss statehood, which is exactly what makes this decision so difficult. One side wants to protect direct democracy. The other wants to protect the economy. How is someone supposed to decide when they care about both?
The Council of States answered that question this week by saying Yes to the treaties, and that may be the least painful way out of the dilemma. The economic risk of a No — and the resulting erosion of the bilateral agreements with Switzerland's most important trading partner — appears too great. The 1972 free trade agreement is no substitute, and renegotiating it would bring too many disadvantages, particularly in agriculture and state aid.
That leaves the question of how deeply the treaties would cut into Switzerland's system of direct democracy. Deeply enough, certainly, that they must be legitimised by a double majority of the people and the cantons. In the areas affected by dynamic adoption of law, legislation would in future be initiated in Brussels. What that means in substance remains vague. It is only in outline that we know how Switzerland would learn about EU legislative projects, what form of consultation might still be possible, and under what circumstances such acts could be shaped or stopped — even if they would have to be adopted directly.
The role of the Federal Court is also unresolved. With its practice of giving international treaties higher weight than Swiss national law, it could throw out the protective measures designed to limit immigration.
The reservations about these treaties are too weighty to be dismissed with platitudes about Switzerland being at the heart of Europe. The rhetorical flourishes heard in the Council of States from both sides do not do justice to the balancing act required. Doing that soberly will be the challenge in a referendum campaign whose intensity is likely to rival 1992.
For now, the Council of States has made its choice. A Yes with reservations. The economic arguments win, narrowly. But the democratic questions have not been answered — and the campaign ahead will force Switzerland to confront them properly.
Written by Thomas Nussbaumer thomas.nussbaumer@alpineweekly.com