SRF Arena to relationships Switzerland/EU: SVP-Aeschi with false statements
Relationships Switzerland/EU
« That’s not true! »: SVP-Aeschi ensures shaking heads with false statements in the EU Arena
In June, the details of the new EU contract package should be open to the public. But in the SRF «arena» there is already a violent argument-and a lot of shaking your head.
There are 700 pages in English. Only an exclusive district has so far been able to take an insight into the contract document of the sending party-and yet the voting struggle for the new EU contract package has long been launched.
Although the public is presumably denied to the public in mid -June, there is a violent argument about the procedure: Should this apply? How many templates do you need? And when should the vote take place?
In terms of content, the contract has always been controversial: Above all, the planned protective clause in immigration and the dynamic legal takeover ensure political explosives – as was seen on Friday evening in the “Arena” of SRF with the invited presidium members from all four Federal Council parties.
The unread dossier
To anticipate one: The Swiss-EU-EU-EU-EU-EU-EU-EU, which comprises more than 700 pages, has not yet been read. But people selected by Cassis’ sending party have already been able to catch a glimpse.
On “Reprint”, as he says, SVP National Councilor Thomas Aeschi was also allowed in the so-called Reading Room. What he saw in it is « much worse than feared ». Switzerland is « practically deprived of voting rights ». In particular, the Federal Council’s “secret crowl” disturb him: the documents would no longer be changed, so the vocal people should also have an insight.
FDP National Councilor Andri Silberschmidt shakes his head because of Aeschi and says that he had “probably the task” that evening to put certain statements in the right light. « Nobody will be withdrawn from voting rights in Switzerland, which is a false statement. »
Silberschmidt also explains that he currently considers a publication of the contract points to be “dubious” – as long as the documents with all legal terms have not been translated from English into Swiss state languages. He says to Aeschi: « The SVP tries to make a scandal out of everything until the voting date ».
Silberschmidt receives a backing from Swissmem director Stefan Brupbacher, who reminds Aeschi that the SVP federal councilors had also been in charge of the EU package-such as the electricity agreement. But for Aeschi it is the next stimulus topic.
Electricity and protective clauses
The SVP politician warns: « At the electricity agreement, consumers are suddenly thrown out of the market and end up in a fluctuating electricity market and then pay more. »
Brupbacher shakes his head in disbelief. The Swissmem director makes it clear: «What you say is simply not true, Mr. Aeschi. Citizens are not forced to change the market. Federal Councilor Rösti negotiated that they keep freedom of choice. » This does not lead to higher, but « tend to be cheaper power prices » and guarantee a stable network. It is undisputed that Switzerland must continue to produce its own electricity itself. But, says Brupacher: «Network stability is central. And that’s exactly what we secure with this agreement with the EU. »
Although no one has read the over 700-page dossier, the arena round also debates about the free movement of people, market access and the new protective clause. Aeschi has criticism everywhere – and basically questions bilateral relationships with the EU. «Switzerland does not need any free movement. After all, she also operates trade with states such as China or Brazil, »he says.
When Silberschmidt throws in that Brazil is not a neighboring country, Aeschi counters: « We have a border – they can come with the plane. » Silberschmidt counters dry: « We have no border with Brazil. » Laughing and shaking my head in the arena.
With the protective clause they came back to the topic. This should apply if threshold values are exceeded in the event of immigration, unemployment or social assistance. The Federal Council would then have to check whether measures are necessary – if necessary against the resistance of the EU.
Aeschi does not believe in the effect: The Federal Council has had similar options for 20 years, but « has never used such a clause ». It is « more than questionable » that it will be different with Federal Council.
SP-CO President Mattea Meyer would like to clarify: « Switzerland is dependent on orderly rules with the EU-precisely because it is small. » If there are differences, clear procedures are needed. A dispute resolution in which one can agree at the end.
In the EU «arena», however, not all of them had arrived in the dispute resolution.
The fear of the people
The arena debate finally escalates when it comes to the subject. While the Federal Council wants to present the EU package to the people to the vote without a stand, others demand: not without double yes. This is exactly what Philip Erzinger from the Allianz Kompass Europe wants with the compass initiative.
This demands that the status for the contract package subsequently force the state – including retroactive effect. The argument: the cantons would have to have a say if fundamental decisions are due to sovereignty. Erzinger is combative: «We will soon be at 85,000 signatures. If the people say yes, they have to be voted on – with a state. »
Mattea Meyer shakes his head over so much constitutional bending. «Article 140 is clear: this is not a mandatory referendum. A state contract is subject to the optional referendum – and that is constitutional. Point. » Middle Councilor Marianne Binder also supports the constitutional argument of the Federal Council-but emphasizes that the formation of opinion in her party has not yet been completed because the contract package has not yet been read.
Thomas Aeschi, on the other hand, sees the demise of Switzerland: «If even the Kuhhorn initiative needed a standstill, but this EU contract is not-then this is the beginning of the end of the Council of States. Marianne, you won’t be there anymore. »
Binder shakes the head over Aeschi’s dark scenario and counters sober: « I would never be about shaking the role of the Council of States. » FDP-Vice Silberschmidt also intervenes-and sums up the debate in a nutshell: «We all want the people to decide. But not everything automatically belongs in front of the state. Who is really afraid of the people? »
