EU Framework Agreement – reliability instead of arbitrariness?

mw. “Reliability instead of arbitrariness: stable EU relations are what counts now.” This cliché was triumphantly trotted out by Swiss EU enthusiasts after US President Trump imposed absurdly high tariffs on Switzerland. And further: “We need predictability and clear rules. Agreements that can be relied upon. That is exactly what the bilateral agreements with the EU have been offering us for 25 years.” (Claudia-Team s+v. strong + networked from 5 August 2025)
  “Reliability”? Are we supposed to let ourselves be drawn into the EU’s war vortex and be fleeced as cash cows to an extent that is still unknown today?
  Someone has to pay the trillions in war loans. This is called “dynamic adoption of law” when the Brussels bureaucracy multiplies our payment obligations in the future. “... instead of arbitrariness”? We have certainly had our experiences with arbitrary punishments from Brussels (exclusion from the Erasmus education program and the Horizon research program, exclusion from EU stock exchanges, suspension of the removal of technical barriers to trade). All of this is contrary to the treaty and illegal, in open violation of bilateral agreements. Have you forgotten already?
  We are assured that such arbitrary acts (euphemistically referred to as “pinpricks”) will no longer be possible under the new EU framework agreement. Then “predictability and clear rules” will apply. Tell that to the ferryman! When an autocratic superpower sets the rules, there is no legal certainty. “Treaties you can rely on”? “That’s exactly what the bilateral agreements with the EU have offered us for 25 years.” Apart from the arbitrary punitive measures and the prevention of an independent immigration policy, this is true to a certain extent. So far, the bilateral agreements have not been so bad for either side. Contrary to the myth of “isolation,” we Swiss would never dream of wanting to cope with it “alone”. As a small country in the middle of Europe, we have naturally always engaged in economic and cultural exchange with our neighbours and other peoples of the world.
  The crux of the matter is something else: We want to decide our own affairs. The Swiss people are used to deciding freely at the ballot box how we want to regulate our laws and how we want to deal with other countries. Bilateral agreements between equals, yes – an institutional superstructure imposed by the bureaucracy of a major power, no. If we have to expect punitive measures (so-called “appropriate compensatory measures”) if the sovereign rejects an EU legal change at the ballot box, that simply does not fit in with our understanding of the state. Is that so difficult to understand? •