Swiss Farmers’ Union: Securing agricultural sovereignty with the EU agreement?

The Agricultural Chamber (Parliament) of the Swiss Farmers’ Union (SBV) has issued a preliminary statement on the ongoing consultation process regarding the Switzerland-EU agreement package. The SBV intends to comment again after the parliamentary debate in 2026. Although it maintains its justified reservations about the adoption of EU law, it considers the “bilateral approach” to be “without alternative” (SDA, 22 October 2025). In doing so, the SBV is adopting the Federal Council’s propaganda campaign’s factually incorrect conflation of bilateral agreements with an institutional framework agreement. On a positive note, the Farmers’ Union is clearly in favour of a mandatory referendum with a majority of the people and the cantons “for constitutional and democratic reasons”.¹
  Some ambiguities should be clarified here.

A genuine bilateral approach after saying
NO the institutional superstructure

The EU treaty package is not “without alternative” for Swiss agriculture or for the rest of us Swiss citizens. This is because it is unlikely that the bilateral agreements would be eroded following a rejection of the new treaties. In fact, it is only without the institutional package that Switzerland can continue on a bilateral path with the EU and, in particular, with our neighbouring countries that is worthy of the name.
  The following personalities, among others, confirm that the bilateral agreements would continue to exist:

• Maros Sefcovic, EU Commissioner responsible for agreements with Switzerland: “Switzerland is a close neighbour and a vital trading partner for the EU. In fact, in terms of exports, the country is the fourth most important market for the confederation.”²

• Boris Zürcher, former Director of Labour at the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs: “If we reject the new agreements, freedom of movement will continue to apply as it does today. Companies in Switzerland will still be able to recruit staff from the EU.” Zürcher in response to the question: Would the EU not end freedom of movement with Switzerland? “Why would it do that? Free movement of persons costs the EU nothing; on the contrary. After the adoption of the mass immigration initiative in 2014, France’s only concern was whether French cross-border commuters would still be able to come to Switzerland. They have jobs and good wages in Switzerland. The border regions have zero interest in restricting the free movement of persons.”³

• Jean-Pierre Bonny, former National Councillor FDP: “Between 1992 [No to the EEA] and today, Switzerland has concluded over a hundred bilateral agreements. But once again, it is said that there is no alternative if Switzerland wants to prevent economic decline. The EU will not accept a no vote, it will torment Switzerland or terminate the free movement of persons.” Bonny counters: “In the 33 years since the vote on EEA membership, Switzerland has experienced an era of unprecedented prosperity. The European Union is not so strong that it could simply do without Switzerland. The EU is a colossus with feet of clay.⁴

Agricultural and food safety
agreements ‘form a coherent unit’

The Farmers’ Union is confident that the existing agricultural agreement will remain virtually unchanged, as it is not subject to dynamic adoption of legislation. In its press release of 22 October, it adds: “Safeguarding complete sovereignty in food and agricultural policy is a red line for the SBV.” The consequences of the new food safety agreement, on the other hand, are “difficult to assess and are likely to depend not least on domestic implementation.” On the other hand, the SBV is right to take a critical view of “the dynamic adoption of legislation in the food safety agreement and the mechanism for compensatory measures.” The industry needs to be better involved in the joint committees – so that it can “have a say” in the introduction of new EU legislation?
  These statements reveal an astonishing underestimation of the devastating consequences that Switzerland’s subordination to EU law and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice would have on our unique understanding of the state. We would be unable to preserve our “sovereignty in food and agricultural policy,” nor would the Federal Council, let alone industry representatives, be able to prevent new EU law against the power of the European Commission. The SBV would therefore be better advised to give greater weight to its unease about the adoption of EU law and the compensatory measures.
  Regarding the two agreements:

• For Brussels, these are not two clearly separate agreements. The preamble to the agricultural agreement states that there is a “direct link between the agreement and the common food safety area, […] with which it forms a coherent unit.”

• The dynamic adoption of law also applies to a large extent to the agricultural agreement. The institutional part differs little from that of the other agreements. The newly inserted Article 7a (2) states: “If the Joint Committee on Agriculture fails to find a solution within a period of three months […], either Party may request that an arbitration tribunal settle the dispute in accordance with the rules laid down in the arbitration protocol to this Agreement.” Article 7b deals with the “proportionate compensatory measures” that the EU may impose on Switzerland if it fails to comply with the measures decided by the arbitration tribunal.
    The involvement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the arbitration tribunal is not actually mentioned in the agricultural agreement. On the other hand, Article IV.3(1) states: “The applicable law shall consist of the Agreement and any other rules of international law relevant to the application of these instruments.” By “rules of international law”, Brussels primarily means EU law. Could the ECJ slip in here?

• No right of referendum on the Food Safety Agreement: As the Farmers’ Union correctly points out, Switzerland would in principle have to adopt EU law in this area in future. The agreement is subject to the so-called integration procedure, which means that new EU standards would apply directly without Switzerland having to transpose them into Swiss law. (Article 13(2). “Union acts which are incorporated into this Protocol in accordance with paragraph 4 shall, by virtue of their incorporation, become part of the Swiss legal order […].”) This would effectively abolish the citizens’ right to a referendum – contrary to the Federal Council’s promise!

The institutional adoption of legislation
is the real crux of the treaty package

Johann Schneider-Ammann, former Federal Councillor FDP: “For Switzerland, dynamic adoption of legislation – i.e. having to adopt new, future enactments – poses a problem. No independent democracy, and certainly not our directly democratic, strongly federalist and subsidiarity-based state, can agree to such an institutionalised rule. One could only agree if the intention were precisely to force the federal state into the superordinate construct – i.e. the EU.”⁵ 
  The Farmers’ Union’s scepticism towards the adoption of law and the mechanism of compensatory measures is therefore very advisable. It would also be advisable not to limit oneself to the agricultural agreements. In fact, the division of the original institutional framework agreement into so-called individual packages tempts each interest group to focus primarily on the parts that they believe directly affect them. This is understandable. However, it is important to keep an eye on the big picture.
  Switzerland’s obligation to adopt future EU law and the case law of the European Court of Justice is the real crux of the Switzerland-EU package and overshadows the entire agreement. Here are two of many critical voices from the field of constitutional law:

• Constitutional law professor Paul Richli, when asked whether the possible imposition of so-called compensatory measures by the EU would change “Switzerland’s democratic DNA”: “Yes. This would seriously restrict the people’s right to vote, and in particular their freedom of opinion, because the compensatory measures would hang over the decision like the sword of Damocles. [...] EU law can still be rejected, but this may result in compensatory measures that negate the concrete advantages of the agreements.” This is because if voters reject a federal law in a referendum, “compensatory measures will be taken, such as the withdrawal of subsidies, without the possibility of another referendum. This means the people cannot vote freely.”⁶

• Professor of constitutional law Andreas Glaser on the question of how significant the planned EU agreement is for Switzerland’s constitutional order: “In my opinion, very significant. The agreement would bring dynamic adoption of legislation across all bilateral agreements, and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) would also play an important new role. These two elements of the agreement would take Switzerland’s relationship with the EU to a whole new level. […] It seems to me that not everyone is clear about the institutional implications of the agreement.”⁷

Implementation of agreements
in line with agricultural practices?

It is understandable that the Swiss Farmers’ Union would like to see the agreements implemented in a way that is compatible with agriculture: “The implementation must be carried out in such a way that Swiss agricultural structures, rural diversity, high standards and the pressing problems of crop protection are not undermined or nullified, but rather strengthened.”⁸
  To be honest, I think the idea that these pillars of Swiss agriculture could be preserved or even strengthened under the new EU agreements is an illusion. The way our agriculture is organised and practised by our farmers – which is indispensable, even for me as a city dweller and long-time civil servant – is part of the decentralised, direct democratic, federalist and subsidiary Swiss state model. Subordinating Switzerland to the centralised, bureaucratic EU legal system would have a negative impact on everything, including our agriculture. There are no “improvements” that could eliminate or mitigate this systemic flaw.

Bureaucracy from
the producer to the consumer

For years, the Swiss Farmers’ Union – and, incidentally, other trade associations such as economiesuisse – has been rightly calling for less administrative burden on businesses so that more time is available for productive work. Anyone who wants less bureaucracy and lower costs for their business cannot, logically, agree to a package of agreements that would flood our economy with bureaucracy. The food safety agreement would be a cautionary example of this.
  In its fact sheet on food safety dated 15 December 2023, the Federal Council explained the purpose of the agreement in more blunt terms than in its current fact sheet: “The aim is to create a comprehensive, common area of food safety across the entire food chain.” The term “food chain” covers all aspects of food law from the producer to the consumer. The agreement on food safety would cover the majority of trade in agricultural products with the EU.”⁹
  It goes without saying that this would involve endless checks – from field to plate. Is it worth agreeing to such interference just so that Swiss farmers can participate in the EU’s rapid alert system? If the Federal Council wanted to, it could push for this even without the treaty package.

¹ “Sicherung der landwirtschaftlichen Souveränität ist wichtig” (Securing agricultural sovereignty is important.) Media release of the Swiss Farmers’ Union of 22 October 2025
² Imwinkelried, Daniel. “Die Schweiz und die EU streben einen raschen Etappensieg an” (Switzerland and the EU are striving for a quick stage victory.) In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 24 June 2025
³ Fontana, Katharina and Schäfer, Fabian. “Boris Zürcher: ‘Wir betreiben eine Wohlfühlpolitik, damit die Leute die Zuwanderung akzeptieren – und heizen damit die Zuwanderung weiter an’ ” (Boris Zürcher: ‘We are pursuing a feel-good policy so that people accept immigration – and in doing so are further fuelling immigration’).In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 19 August 2025
⁴ Neuhaus, Christina. “Jean-Pierre Bonny: ‘Die EU ist nicht so stark, dass sie einfach auf die Schweiz verzichten könnte. Sie ist ein Koloss auf tönernen Füssen’ ” (Jean-Pierre Bonny: ‘The EU is not so strong that it could simply do without Switzerland. It is a colossus with feet of clay.’) In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 24 September 2025.
⁵ Schneider-Ammann, Johann Niklaus. “Die Schweiz darf gegenüber der EU nicht den Weg des geringsten Widerstands gehen” (Switzerland must not take the path of least resistance with regard to the EU). Guest commentary. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 13 October 2025
⁶ Kälin, Kari. “Stimmrecht des Volks wird beschränkt”. (The people’s right to vote is restricted). Interview with Paul Richli. In: CH Media of 24 April 2025
⁷ Fontana, Katharina. “Staatsrechtler Andreas Glaser: ‘In der Schweiz ist man sich über die Tragweite des EU-Abkommens nicht im klaren’ ” (Constitutional law expert Andreas Glaser: ‘In Switzerland, people are not clear about the implications of the EU agreement’). In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 23 January 2024
⁸ Wanner, Christine. “Nachbesserungen gefordert. Bauernverband wägt Chancen und Risiken der EU-Verträge ab” (Improvements demanded. Farmers’ Union weighs up opportunities and risks of EU agreements). In: SRF News of 26 August 2025
⁹  https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/85455.pdf