Direct democracy instead of dictates from Brussels

In the middle of the summer holidays, Switzerland wakes up from the twilight of the information void on the new version of the Swiss-EU Framework Agreement, which the then Federal Council had rightly halted in May 2021. The Federal Council has been “in dialogue” with Brussels again since November 2023. However, what exactly is up for negotiation is still up in the air, as the EU has long since passed its “Common Understanding”, which Switzerland can only decorate with a few plasters.¹
  Now the newly elected SP Federal Councillor Beat Jans apparently feels authorised to break away from the collegial principle of the Seven Councillors’ Body and beat the drum in favour of the so-called “Bilaterals III” before the text of the treaty is even known. And the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” is actually spreading the carpet in his favour.² Fortunately, he is encountering some headwinds. 

We spare our readers the regurgitation of Jans’ trivialising bedtime stories about the cornerstones of the framework agreement (adoption of legislation, jurisdiction, alleged legal certainty), which are not made any truer by frequent repetition. We would rather give the floor to a few counter-speakers with a clear Swiss point of view: former Federal Councillor Ueli Maurer, Weltwoche editor-in-chief Roger Köppel and democracy activist Daniel Graf.

Former Federal Councillor Ueli
Maurer: ‘In Switzerland, what matters
is always  the sovereignty of the people’

Ueli Maurer’s warning gets into your bones for Jans’ article “rings all the alarm bells”. Apparently, the Federal Council wants to “adopt the EU demands that have always been disputed” despite the unchanged starting position and unresolved issues in the institutional part. This paradigm shift “also jeopardises Switzerland’s independence”.³
  Embarrassingly, former Federal Councillor Maurer has to give the current head of the Department of Justice and Police (FDJP) lessons in constitutional law. Ueli Maurer counters Jans’ bold assertion that the framework agreement with Brussels will strengthen Switzerland’s sovereignty with the words: “That’s almost a malicious distortion of the facts. How is the sovereignty and self-determination of the Swiss supposed to be strengthened if decisions are made in Brussels instead of in Switzerland? It may be that it is easier for civil servants and federal councillors to wave through Brussels decisions instead of representing popular decisions in the EU. But in Switzerland, what matters is always the sovereignty of the people, not the convenience and sovereignty of the authorities.”

Agreements at eye level 

Nor does Beat Jans spare us the eternally idiotic claim that the opponents of the framework treaty are “praising going it alone”. Any honest person knows that there can be no question of going it alone, as Switzerland is located in the middle of Europe and, as a country with four language cultures, has always been in active exchange with its neighbours and far beyond. Of course we need experts from abroad. But not in unlimited numbers, as demanded by Brussels and irresponsibly supported by Jans and other Swiss politicians. And of course Switzerland benefits from the EU internal market – and vice versa. But a treaty between Switzerland and the EU or anyone else must safeguard our vital interests, otherwise it belongs in the wastepaper basket. It is the Federal Council’s job to explain this to our federal administration and the bureaucrats in Brussels.
  Ueli Maurer, who unfortunately stepped down in 2022, was one such Federal Councillor. Ahead of 1^st August, he warned: “Our national day is not a day of self-abandonment, but an occasion to strengthen freedom and independence.” Maurer reminded us how much Switzerland has to offer the EU, particularly in terms of immigration and freight transport, and called for equal negotiations: “Of course we need rules for trade with the EU. Switzerland proves this every day. Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens come to Switzerland every day and earn their living here. Hundreds of thousands live here, feel at home and stay. This uncontrolled flow needs guard rails. The majority of north-south traffic, a lifeline of the EU economy, runs on Swiss roads and railways. We have invested billions in this. What we expect are talks and solutions at eye level, not submission to EU law and EU judges.”

The sword of Damocles: sanctions

Daniel Graf is a so-called Swiss “political activist” who for years has supported signature collections for initiatives and referendums with advice and action via the internet platform “We collect”, so far mainly left-wing initiatives. Today, he continues his involvement in the “Foundation for Direct Democracy”. Recently, Graf has made clear statements in the daily press about the threat to direct democracy posed by the new version of the framework agreement with Brussels. This has earned him some criticism, but Graf takes it in his stride: “Anyone who is committed to direct democracy should not expect applause from the parties.” An important voice, precisely because it comes from the left.⁴
  The domestic decision-making process supposedly does not change with the dynamic adoption of legislation, claim EU turbos such as National Councillor Roger Nordmann (SP), President of the (new) European Movement Switzerland (Nomes). Daniel Graf disagrees: “That may be true on paper. In practice, however, it is simply wrong. Of course, we can still hold referendums and launch initiatives. [...] But there is the sword of Damocles of sanctions in the agreement. They are a huge obstacle to winning a referendum.” Graf cites the referendum against the “Further development of the European border guard Frontex” as an example: “The Schengen Agreement is based on the dynamic adoption of legislation. The main argument put forward by those in favour of Frontex was that Switzerland would lose its Schengen membership if it voted yes [to the referendum, i.e., no to Frontex, mw]. This shows how discussions will change: They will no longer be about content, but about sanctions.”

In favour of a
mandatory referendum with
a (required) majority of the cantons

Daniel Graf’s understanding of democracy and federalism also differs favourably from that of many left-wing colleagues in another respect. Like many other citizens and some independent-minded constitutional law experts, he believes that a high hurdle makes sense when it comes to the question of how Switzerland will be linked to the EU in the future: “It should be clear to everyone that this decision will affect Switzerland and its federal system. We are therefore clearly in favour of a mandatory referendum – with a required majority of the cantons.” Graf adds: “However, the question of direct democracy will be decisive for both the mandatory and the optional referendum.” In other words, the Swiss people will also say no to their own disempowerment as sovereign in case of an optional referendum. It is important to campaign for this “no”.

Lobbying in Brussels instead
of Swiss consultation procedure?

According to Daniel Graf “Swiss democracy [...] does not start with referendums and initiatives. It starts with the consultation procedure, which is the centrepiece: all interest groups that want to influence a proposal from the outset take part in it.” In addition to the written comments in the consultation procedure, associations and organisations, as well as business groups, are also busy making direct contact with parliamentarians in the Federal Palace. Apparently, Daniel Graf’s organisation is also involved in the discussion there, depending on the topic.
  Lobbying in Brussels is very different from lobbying in the Federal Palace, and not just because of the difference in size: EU bureaucracy and the Swiss state structure are two different things.
  With regard to a possible framework agreement with the EU, Graf rightly raises the problem that many Swiss organisations would fall behind if they wanted to make their voices heard in Brussels: “Smaller civil society organisations that work on issues such as transport, environmental protection or issues relating to people with disabilities have financial limits. Lobbying in Brussels is even more costly than in Berne. Those with large resources can assert their interests more easily at the European level. This is one of the reasons why business and corporate interests are very strong in Europe.”
  This makes it abundantly clear why Swiss business associations such as economiesuisse and Swissmem are determined to push through a framework agreement with the EU that is unfavourable in every respect for our country and our people, even though the Swiss economy – thanks to our relative independence – is known to be much better off than the struggling companies in the EU. Just so that they have to fill in a few less forms? Don’t talk nonsense: The large Swiss corporations represented by economiesuisse, which have long since relocated their branches to the EU anyway, could dock directly onto the Brussels cake with Switzerland as a quasi-member, but at the same time continue to participate in the well-positioned Swiss economic location. They want to have their cake and eat it too – Swiss sovereignty or not. It is comforting that the vast majority of owners and employees of the more than ninety per cent of Swiss SMEs tick differently. And there are business organisations such as Kompass/Europa, whose members still have their hearts in the right place by explaining to their fellow citizens “Why we don’t need a framework agreement 2.0.”⁵  •

¹ see “Switzerland-EU negotiations – familiar content in new packaging”. In: Current Concerns, No 24, 21 November 2023
² Jans, Beat. “Warum wir die Bilateralen III brauchen” (Why we need the Bilaterals III). In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 23 July 2024
³ Maurer, Ueli. “Ueli Maurer kritisiert Beat Jans: Berns EU-Kurs muss gestoppt werden” (Ueli Maurer criticises Beat Jans: Berne’s EU course must be stopped). In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung from 26 July 2024
⁴ von Matt, Othmar. “Niemand will die Katze im Sack kaufen” (Nobody wants to buy a pig in a poke). Interview with Daniel Graf. In: Aargauer Zeitung of 8 July 2024
⁵ Erni, Marcel/Erzinger, Philip. “Warum wir keinen Rahmenvertrag 2.0 brauchen” (Why we don’t need a framework agreement 2.0).  https://kompasseuropa.ch/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240225-Replik-NZZ-BR-Jans.pdf