Council of States: debate on Bilaterals III begins (cross-border guide)

Context

In brief

• The Council of States discusses Bilaterals III
• Entry into the matter should be approved
• Referendum: the people or the people and the Cantons
• Opponents speak of a colonial agreement

Key facts

• Venue → Council of States
• Subject → package of agreements with the EU
• Political sticking point → dynamic adoption of law
• Clause → safeguard in case of high immigration
• Compensatory measures → sector-specific and proportionate
• Vote → optional or mandatory referendum

At the Council of States, debate on whether to consider the package of agreements with the EU is in full swing. The majority considers Bilaterals III a tool to give new impetus to relations with Brussels; opponents, essentially from the UDC, see it instead as an agreement with a colonial flavor. Despite the critical voices of the Swiss People's Party, also supported by some figures from the Centre and the PLR, the motion to consider the matter should be approved.

The supporters' position

For supporters, what is at stake is the stabilization of relations with Switzerland's largest economic partner, amid a complicated geopolitical situation. However, two delicate dossiers emerged in the debate: the free movement of persons, with the EU directives on citizenship, and the dynamic adoption of law. The discussion also touched on the referendum: optional, with a majority of the people, or mandatory, with a majority of the people and the Cantons.

Carlo Sommaruga (PS/GE), speaking on behalf of the Foreign Policy Committee, warned that a no vote could risk eroding the current agreements and the foundation of Swiss prosperity. He deemed it «contrary to reality» to think that the status quo could be preserved and that an agreement could be negotiated one at a time in the future, only in sectors useful to Switzerland.

Sommaruga recalled that Switzerland could derogate from the adoption of EU law in the sectors covered by an agreement. In the absence of an agreement, a mechanism would be provided for resolving disputes. Any compensatory measures, also defined as sanctions, could be adopted by the EU only in the specific sector concerned and would have to remain proportionate. Compared with the negotiations that failed in 2021, the package would also provide for a safeguard clause for serious economic and social problems in the event of high immigration.

Among the supporters, Tiana Angelina Moser (PVL/ZH) described the agreements as one of the fundamental documents for future generations and for the continuation of Bilaterals I and II. Franziska Roth (PS/SO) spoke of protection against arbitrariness, transparency, oversight and clear legal procedures in the event of disagreement. Pirmin Bischof and Benedickt Würth (Centre/SO and Centre/SG) stressed the package's economic importance for Cantons dependent on exports to the EU area; for Würth, a no vote would be a «leap into the dark». Petra Gössi (PLR/SZ) supported the double majority to provide legal certainty.

Operational details

What translates for those who live or work in Switzerland

The debate takes on practical importance because the measures concern the free movement of persons, access to residence, rules on state aid and the costs of social assistance. However, these interpretations are not shared: supporters describe a framework of stability and procedures, while opponents warn of a transfer of power to Brussels.

Work and daily life

Marco Chiesa linked the dossier to the situation in Ticino. He spoke of the ever-growing number of cross-border commuters, especially in the tertiary sector, coming from Lombardy, a region where salaries are significantly lower than ours. In his remarks, he added that young people are struggling and cited data from the International Labour Organization according to which 13% of them are unemployed. He also argued that workers over 50 risk being replaced by a foreigner. These are arguments brought before the chamber by the member of the Council of States from Lugano to challenge the package.

A second point concerns residence and assistance. Chiesa stated that the new citizenship directives would grant the right to permanent residence after five years even to people who work part-time and then ended up receiving assistance. Hence his concern about an increase in social assistance costs and his request that, considering the effects on the Cantons, the package be submitted to a mandatory referendum.

The two interpretations

Tiana Angelina Moser used Brexit as a point of comparison: in her view, the United Kingdom lost access to the EU internal market and small and medium-sized enterprises were harmed as a result. Chiesa, on the other hand, maintains that in the event of disagreement, the Court of Justice of the EU will always have the final say over the arbitral tribunal and that the population would risk compensatory measures, that is, sanctions. To follow the everyday aspect without confusing the institutional debate with an individual calculation, one can consult costo della vita in Svizzera.

Recommended tools

For an updated estimate, use the net salary calculator and the CHF-EUR exchange comparator.

Key points

How to navigate before a potential vote

Those who live or work in Switzerland can read the dossier by following four steps. The debate is currently at the Council of States and concerns the preliminary consideration of the bill, which, according to sources, is expected to be approved.

Four practical steps

1. Identify the institutional crux. The first question concerns the referendum. If it is optional, the choice rests on the majority of the people; if it is mandatory, both the majority of the people and the Cantons are required. Petra Gössi supports the double majority to provide legal certainty, while Marco Chiesa considers it necessary due to the cantonal effects of the package.

2. Separate the contents. The free movement of persons and EU citizenship directives form one block. The dynamic adoption of law and the role of the EU Court of Justice form another. State aid, social assistance, and the safeguard clause complete the points that Chiesa considers most sensitive for the Cantons.

3. Compare the guarantees. In the favorable position, Switzerland can derogate from the adoption of law in sectors where an agreement exists; in case of dispute, procedures are provided, while compensatory measures should remain proportionate and limited to the sector concerned. In the opposing position, the Arbitral Tribunal would not have the final say, and sanctions could leave institutions at the mercy of the EU.

4. Bring the topic back to the local level. For a Canton dependent on exports to the EU area, such as those mentioned by Pirmin Bischof and Benedickt Würth, the package is primarily an economic issue. For Ticino, the discussion also involves the free movement of persons, cross-border commuters from Lombardy, and the effects on labor evoked by Chiesa. Those who wish to observe the professional side can supplement their reading with job advertisements.

This framework brings together the two theses: Sommaruga considers aiming for the status quo to be contrary to reality; Chiesa argues that the package would modify the essence of the relationship between Switzerland and the EU. The reference of the clause to serious economic and social problems in the event of high immigration also remains central.

To connect the labor debate to your own situation, the final step is to use the salary calculator.

Source: swissinfo.ch