EU contracts: Do you need a standstill?

A Zurich government councilor believes that the cantons are very agreed and do not want to assume the EU contracts. Voices from Central Switzerland nourish doubts about this assessment. Meanwhile, the conference of the cantonal governments cannot be seen in the cards.

The battle was defeated, the Federal Council was defeated: With 50.3 percent no votes, the people rejected the EEA accession on December 6, 1992, 24,000 votes were decisive. He clearly failed at the stand: only the six cantons of western Switzerland and both Basel spoke out for more European integration.

At the end of December, the Federal Council concluded negotiations with the EU on the further development of bilateral contracts. The consultation starts in summer. Until the template comes to the urn, it should be in 2027 or 2028. It remains open whether the Federal Council suggests the parliament to accommodate the approach to Brussels to the optional or the mandatory referendum. Clarity will prevail in summer.

The question is relevant: the mandatory referendum requires the constitution that hurts for a yes. In the optional, this is enough. A march on knife cutting edges to the EU contracts as with EEA is conceivable.

The conference of the cantonal governments (KDK) is the strengthening of federalism on its flag. How does she ask herself to the question of double more? Markus Dieth, Aargau Government Council (the middle) and President of the KDK, is covered: «For a well -founded legal and political discussion, not only the negotiation results, but also the domestic implementation legislation must be known.

As a result, the KDK will only position itself if the Federal Council gives the relevant documents in the consultation. »

« Economists should keep out of legal questions »

It is an open secret that the KDK positively assesses the Federal Council’s negotiation result. Dieth already held a flaming plea for the new contracts at the University of Zurich last November. He also contradicted the argument that they would circumcise the sovereignty of Switzerland because the democratic rights were retained at all levels.

In order for the KDK to speak to one voice, 18 cantons must agree to a position. There are much to indicate that the KDK leadership team would rather do without the stand. As an economic professor Bruno S. Frey this a year ago on the LinkedIn platform criticized, KDK general secretary Roland Mayer dismissed him: « Economists should keep out of legal questions. »

And just recently, Zurich’s government councilor Jacqueline Fehr (SP) told the “NZZ on Sunday”: “You may be amazed at how the cantons are in this question.” From Zurich’s point of view, it is clear that the state is not a good idea for the agreement with the EU because a voice from a small canton is far too important.

Central Switzerland is flirting with the veto

The topic of state and EU contracts does not heat the minds for the first time. After the Federal Council passed a provisional negotiation mandate with the EU in December 2023, the topic triggered a controversy. The “NZZ am Sonntag” headlined in February 2024: « EU contract: Central Switzerland wants a veto law. »

The government councilors of Central Switzerland, which represented their cantons in the KDK, may no longer be leaning out as far as it was then. They refer to the early consultation.

Nidwalden has not yet determined his position on the question of the teaching of the city, says Economic Director Othmar Filliger. However, the middle politician can be elicited, his canton of tendency to the mandatory referendum. He had already said to the “NZZ am Sonntag” a year ago: “The topics dealt with in the planned contract are simply too relevant to do without a standstill.”

The Schwyz government councilor Herbert Huwiler (SVP) recently interview argues with the « Zeit question » portal. The government councilor Daniel Wyler (SVP) also pleads personally for the stand. The same applies to the Ticino government council Norman Gobbi (Lega). The mood from Central Switzerland and the south allows the conclusion: The cantons should not do without twice as unanimously as Jacqueline Fehr represents.

Lawyers contradict each other

Higher hurdles yes or no? The dispute over the estimate also takes place among lawyers. At the beginning of 2024 Astrid Epiney, professor for European law, told the « NZZ on Sunday »in the constitution there is nothing of a mandatory referendum, even if a state contract has extensive consequences.

The mandatory referendum is only intended for accession to organizations for collective security such as UN or NATO and for supranational communities such as the EU.

The Federal Office of Justice confirmed this perspective in its own last May Appraise. However, there is the following objection to this interpretation: If there is any questions, the Federal Council can apply for the so-called mandatory referendum SUI generis, as he did the 1920 of the 1972 Free Trade Agreement in the 1972 Free Trade Agreement.

In the 1999 constitutional revision, the parliament did not write the referendum Sui Generis in the constitution, but expressly left this option openly as habitual law.

Parliament sinks proposal to the referendum

The Federal Office of Justice comes to the conclusion that the parliament has sunk this possibility. The reason: Four years ago it did not come up with a template that wanted to write the mandatory referendum « for international law contracts with a constitutional character ».

Paul Richli raises an objection to this interpretation, which comes from the department of the EU-friendly Federal Council Beat Jans. The emeritus professor of public law at the University of Lucerne, who describes himself as a liberal spirit, wrote a opinion. A conclusion: If Parliament had wanted to abolish the mandatory referendum SUI generis four years ago, it should have made an explicit decision.

For Richli, legal reasons speak for more reasons than against the state. In his view, one of the most important is that the EU contracts lead to a “serious restriction” of the citizens’ freedom of voting guaranteed in the constitution. The reason lies in the so -called dynamic legal takeover. If the people reject the adoption of EU law at the urn, Brussels can impose criminal measures whose consequences are difficult to predict.

Mandatory referendum, simple referendum. In the urn to the EU contracts, the people have to decide what is more important to them: presumed economic advantages through better access to the EU internal market-or coordinate without the Damocles sword of punitive measures.