Now comes the struggle for the EU protection clause

The federal government should be able to reduce immigration under certain conditions. That is the goal of the protective clause with the EU. Now the Federal Council wants to decide on the specific measures.

Negotiations on the new bilateral contracts with the EU have extended for years. But now it’s going in a feast. Ten days ago, the Federal Council decided that the contract package should only be subordinate to the people, so it does not need a majority of the cantons. The decision had been expected for a long time and is highly controversial – the opponents of the institutional agreement with Brussels reacted outraged.

Now the next excitement is imminent. Already next Wednesday, the Federal Council wants to advise on the implementation of the protective clause in the area of ​​free movement. According to reports, a press conference with Justice Minister Beat Jans is planned if the Federal Council decided. This is not confirmed.

In terms of content, it is about the specification of a protective clause that has been in the contract for the free movement of people since 1999. However, she never came into play because Brussels could block the application. This should change with the newly negotiated bilateral contracts. According to major resistance, the EU has granted a new, more gripper protective clause-after discussions that even the then Federal President Viola Amherd and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen were involved.

Housing shortage is also a topic

The wording of the clause is not public. However, the Federal Council writes in facts on the negotiation result: « The newly designed protective clause can be activated independently by Switzerland. » An arbitration court with members of both sides would then decide whether the application is right. If so, Switzerland should control immigration. The EU received the right to take compensation measures; However, these should be proportionate and should only affect the scope of the free movement of people.

Apparently, the Federal Administration has now completed the work for the implementation of this clause in Swiss law. Accordingly, criteria are to be defined in the foreign and integration law, when the Federal Council is mandatory to protect the protective clause must. This, for example, when net immigration, unemployment or social welfare quota in a region or an industry achieve an extent that leads to « serious economic or social problems ».

In addition, it is reportedly stated that they are caused by threshold values ​​in the law for further criteria in which the Federal Council activate the protective clause can. Among other things, numbers from the housing market should play a role here. For example, if a quick, very strong immigration in a region or city should trigger faults in the rental apartment market up to an acute shortage of housing.

Argument against 10 million initiative of the SVP

Although the Federal Council’s aggressive list is confidential, the advisory of the protective clause ensures increased retirement days in advance under the Bundeshauskuppel. The SVP, as the most vehement critic of the new contracts, is to prepare a counter-media conference for the appearance of Federal Councilor Jans next Wednesday.

For the party, it has long been clear that the effect of the new protective clause will not meet your expectations. On Wednesday, SVP parliamentary group leader Thomas Aeschi and National Councilor Magdalena Martullo Bloch had the opportunity to read the contract texts. The same right is granted all parliamentary groups. After reading, Aeschi said before the media he was « shocked » how badly the contract package had been negotiated. At the same time, according to a report by the “Tages-Anzeiger”, he revealed that the Federal Council will inform about the domestic implementation of the protective clause next Wednesday.

The SVP does not get the new protective clause because it could invalidate its initiative “no 10 million Switzerland”. When the SP Federal Council and Minister of Justice Janans founded why the Federal Council rejects the SVP initiative without a counter-proposal, he said: With the protective clause, « The federal government can better control immigration if it takes place too quickly and causes measurable problems». In contrast to the initiative, this procedure does not endanger the bilateral path and is therefore the better solution, said Jans.