Bilateral Agreements III: The Council of States Calls for a Referendum

Context

In Brief

• The cantons are calling for a mandatory referendum on the Bilateral Agreements III
• The vote ended 23 to 17, with 3 abstentions
• Now it’s up to the National Council
• Cassis believes the goal is still achievable

• Subject → new package of bilateral agreements with the European Union
• Decision → mandatory referendum
• Outcome → 23 votes in favor, 17 against, and 3 abstentions
• Required majority → the people and the cantons
• Next step → debate in the National Council
• Federal Government’s position → optional referendum on international treaties

With 23 votes in favor, 17 against, and 3 abstentions, the Council of States has called for the new package of bilateral agreements with the European Union to be subject to a mandatory referendum. The consequence outlined in the debate is clear: approval would require a double majority—from both the people and the cantons.

The matter must now be debated by the National Council. The referral to the Council of States therefore does not mark the end of the process for Bilateral Agreements III. In the meantime, however, the Council of States has rebuked the Federal Government, which had repeatedly expressed support for an optional referendum on international treaties.

The Council of States’ vote thus contains two political signals. On the one hand, it establishes the requirement for a mandatory referendum on the package; on the other, it opens a path that will need to be evaluated by the National Council. The debate in the National Council has yet to take place.

Cassis’s Assessment

In an interview with RSI, Ignazio Cassis, Federal Councilor and head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, described the result as “more glass half-full than half-empty.” He acknowledged that the outcome does not exactly match what the Federal Council had hoped for, but he framed the vote within the broader discussion on the balance between democracy and federalism.

“It’s more full than empty.”

Cassis also described the six-hour debate in the Council of States as high-quality, arguing that the discussion delved deeply into the very foundations of the Confederation and the state. On the political merits, the head of the FDFA believes that the Bilateral Agreements III remain on the right track. In his view, the cantons largely followed the Federal Council’s lead, while adding some of their own emphasis.

As for the double referendum, Cassis argued that it would not significantly affect the chances of the package being approved. He did, however, acknowledge the need for significant effort to explain and clarify the rationale behind Bilateral Agreements III, describing the goal as achievable.

Operational details

The practical significance of the cantonal vote can be seen in the difference between the two paths compared in the debate: the one supported by the Federal Government, oriented toward an optional referendum, and the one approved by the Council of States, which calls for a mandatory referendum. The second formula explicitly links the package to a double majority, of both the people and the cantons.

For those living in Switzerland, the point to follow is therefore the electorate that must be convinced. Cassis does not describe the additional requirement as an automatic obstacle: he argues that Bilaterals III can be accepted by the people and the cantons. But he acknowledges that the explanation of the package will have to be broader and capable of clarifying why the choice was made.

A step that requires listening to the regions

The call for listening to the regions emerges above all when the head of the DFAE speaks about the small cantons. According to Cassis, it will be necessary to go to the small cantons that feel somewhat distant from these discussions, because they have no industries and have needs that are entirely different from those of major industrial centers such as Zurich, the Léman Arc or eastern Switzerland, with reference to the Rhine Valley.

This distinction makes the debate less uniform. The same proposal must be presented to cantonal communities that, according to Cassis's description, do not share the needs of the major industrial areas. For the reader, this means observing not only the content of the package, but also how the Federal Council intends to present it in the different cantons.

The opposition of the UDC emerged in the debate, along with that of part of the Centre and the PLR. Cassis does not challenge the legitimacy of these positions: he recalls that these are elected people who are entitled to express them consistently and clearly. The political fact, however, cannot automatically be carried over to the next stage. According to the federal councillor, the dynamic will be very different in the National Council, because the interplay of the cantons and federalism weighed heavily in the Council of States.

To separate this political perspective from a personal interpretation, you can consult costo della vita in Svizzera and use calcolatore stipendio/imposte as separate tools.

Useful tools to protect your net income

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

Key points

To follow this issue without getting the steps mixed up, readers can follow a simple sequence. The vote by the cantons should be viewed as a decision on the type of referendum required, not as the conclusion of the entire process.

A Step-by-Step Guide

1. Identify the subject of the decision: The Council of States has called for a mandatory referendum on the new package of bilateral agreements with the European Union.

2. Follow the process as it moves to the National Council. This is the next designated forum for debate, and, according to Cassis, it may reveal a different political dynamic than the one that emerged in the Council of States.

3. When reading a comment on the package’s approval, check which majority it refers to. The Council of States’ proposal identifies the people and the cantons as the two components of the double majority.

4. Distinguish between the parties’ positions and the effects of the procedure. The debate has revealed opposition from the SVP and from parts of the Center Party and the FDP, but Cassis urges people to wait for the discussion in the National Council to get a clearer picture.

This approach avoids jumping to conclusions. Cassis noted that the final decision will clearly rest with the people and perhaps the cantons, while the parliamentary debate is not yet over. For those who live or work in Switzerland, the practical step is therefore to follow separately the Council of States’ passage of the bill, the debate in the National Council, and the double-majority requirement.

The debate described here does not provide a specific course of action to take, but offers a framework for interpreting upcoming developments: which chamber is speaking, what position it supports, and what role is assigned to the cantons. To translate the national context into a personal reference point, use calcolatore stipendio/imposte.

Source: rsi.ch