Bilateral Agreements III: the Council of States opens the debate (cross-border guide)

Context

In brief

• 29 votes to 15 in favour of entering into consideration
• The package: 94 EU acts, 18 agreements and two declarations
• Referendum: vote expected tomorrow
• Debate in the chamber: over five hours

Key facts

• Subject → Swiss-EU stabilization package, Bilaterals III
• Vote → 29 in favour and 15 against
• Composition → 94 EU legal acts, 18 agreements and protocols, two joint declarations
• Topics → referendum, state aid, wages, immigration, EU law, education and research
• Discussion → presumably until Wednesday evening

The vote in the Council of States

With 29 votes against 15, the Council of States entered into consideration today of the Swiss-EU stabilization package, Bilaterals III. The decision opens the detailed examination of a project made up of 94 EU legal acts, 18 agreements and protocols, and two joint declarations.

An examination still open

The outcome came as no surprise: the camps had already formed. The UDC declared itself opposed to the entire package. The other parties, with some exceptions in the Centro and the PLR, together with the social partners and business associations, support the bilateral route in principle, but are demanding conditions.

The discussion of the details will presumably continue until Wednesday evening. The controversial points include the referendum, state aid, wage protection, immigration provisions, the dynamic adoption of EU law, and education and research. The examination of state aid began today and will continue tomorrow.

The debate on entering into consideration lasted over five hours and involved more than half of the members of the chamber. Federal Councillors Ignazio Cassis, Guy Parmelin and Beat Jans subsequently took the floor, respectively for foreign affairs, the economy, education and research, and justice and police.

On behalf of the Foreign Policy Committee, Carlo Sommaruga argued that a no could risk prolonging the erosion of the current agreements and, ultimately, of the foundation of Swiss prosperity. Fabio Regazzi, who also spoke for the Swiss Union of Arts and Crafts, which he chairs, urged that the door not be closed. He described the agreement as important for businesses and the free movement of persons, while acknowledging that wage protection, including protection against the dismissal of trade unionists, contains elements not welcomed by USAM. His final vote will also depend on how this is handled.

The discussion also touched on the referendum. Petra Gössi and Regazzi supported the double majority, meaning the people and the cantons, referring to the scope of the agreements and cantonal sovereignty. The vote on this point is expected tomorrow.

Operational details

The practical significance of the comparison

The source presents Bilaterals III as a decision with two levels. The first concerns the stability of relations with the largest economic partner. The second concerns the rules that, according to supporters and opponents, would define the future relationship between Switzerland and the EU. For those who live or work in Switzerland, the discussion therefore extends to businesses, mobility, wages, immigration, education and research.

The parliamentary procedure does not yet amount to an operational change. Entering into consideration opens the debate on the package; the effects depend on the details that the Chamber is examining. This distinction prevents political positions from being turned into obligations that are already valid.

Four aspects to keep separate

The reference to Brexit adds a concrete comparison to the debate. Tiana Angelina Moser argued that the status quo was not practicable and recalled that the United Kingdom, after losing access to the EU internal market, had harmed small and medium-sized enterprises. The source presents this as an argument in favor of bilateral continuity, not as an automatic prediction for Switzerland.

Opponents, on the other hand, view the dynamic adoption of Brussels law and case law as a problem for sovereignty. Marco Chiesa spoke about the role of the Court of Justice of the EU and possible compensatory measures; Ignazio Cassis challenged in the chamber the assertion that the Court would have the final say. Those consulting annunci di lavoro can therefore add the professional dimension to their reading of the rules still under discussion, without confusing the debate with a decision that is already applicable.

Useful tools to protect your net income

To reduce FX leakage, compare CHF-EUR exchange options and banks for cross-border workers.

Key points

How to follow the next steps

The timetable indicated by the session allows for concrete monitoring, without anticipating the final outcome. The first rule is to distinguish what has already been voted on from what remains to be decided: the Council of States has voted to enter into the matter, while the details and the wording of the referendum are still under consideration.

An operational checklist

1. Mark the immediate steps. The examination of state aid, which began today, will continue tomorrow. The vote on the nature of the referendum is scheduled for the same day. The discussion of the package may presumably continue until Wednesday evening.

2. Read the referendum using the exact wording. An optional referendum means, within the framework described in the chamber, a majority of the people. A mandatory referendum means a majority of the people and the cantons. Do not confuse the procedural choice with approval or rejection of the entire package.

3. Divide the news by dossier. Keep state aid, wage protection, immigration, free movement, dynamic adoption of EU law, education and research separate. These are the points indicated in the source; a statement on one of them does not automatically resolve the others.

4. Attribute each prediction to the person who formulated it. Supporters speak of stabilizing relations and the risk of erosion of the current agreements in the event of a no vote. Opponents speak of sovereignty, Brussels case law and possible compensatory measures. The report also states that Ignazio Cassis contested in the chamber the assertion that the EU Court of Justice has the final say. Separating these positions helps to follow the vote without treating a hypothesis as an established fact.

5. Connect the dossier to your situation only after clarifying the point concerned. A company can start with the economic relations with the EU area evoked in the debate; those considering a career change can consult the aziende che assumono, keeping the information tool distinct from the political outcome.

For a personal reference on income while the Council of States examines the package, use the calcolatore stipendio.

Source: swissinfo.ch