Unrealistic wishful thinking

Apparently, some Swiss citizens have not fully grasped the principle of institutional adoption of EU legislation. Switzerland would be basically obligated to adopt new EU law and could be penalised with unknown compensatory measures if the Federal Council, parliament, or the people reject individual EU standards. Such a system is incompatible with the Swiss understanding of the state and with the direct democratic rights of its citizens. Period. Anyone who highlights individual exceptions as major achievements of the Swiss negotiating team or speculates on a democratically compatible domestic implementation is distracting from the essential part.

In the consultation procedure, which ended at the end of October, cantons, political parties, and associations have taken preliminary positions. In the time up to the referendum – which will presumably be held in 2027 – a course correction is still possible. While the Social Democratic Party (SP), the Green Party, the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Green Liberals generally agree with the package, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) rejects it for reasons of state policy.

Why does the trade association not have
the guts to say a forthright “no”?

Mind you, some participants in the consultation process, such as the Swiss Farmers’ Union¹ and the Swiss Trade Association (sgv) are uneasy about being constrained to implement an unfiltered adoption of EU standards and ECJ rulings. In its response to the consultation, the sgv writes in no uncertain terms: “However, the institutional rules of the new agreement package are being critically judged, and approval is only conceivable under certain conditions because they increase bureaucracy, strengthen the administration, and weaken the democratic influence of the Swiss people and SMEs.”² This realisation should actually be enough for a clear “no” to the framework agreement. Why do the SME representatives not dare to speak out? They are, admittedly, expressing their unease to some extent by demanding a mandatory referendum including the majority of cantons.
  According to the Swiss Trade Association the existing Bilateral Agreements I and II simply do bring numerous advantages to Swiss SMEs, “especially market participation via the Single Market Agreements and the free movement of persons.” As if the bilateral agreements could not just as easily be continued and developed without an institutional framework – but on an equal footing. Brussels, in any case, will hardly be interested in ending the free movement of persons or transit traffic through the Alps.

A huge bureaucratic apparatus for
the sake of EU law adoption
“measuring up to democratic standards”?

Even the Centre Party is extremely reluctant to grasp the principle of institutional law adoption. Otherwise, it would not claim in its consultation response that everything would be fine with a Federal Council “monitoring concept”. When the EU plans new rules, the “relevant parliamentary committees, the cantons, and the public […] must be informed about EU legal developments at an early stage” so that they have the opportunity to “identify controversial EU legal developments early on, discuss them politically, and provide the Federal Council with guidelines for action.”³
  As if the EU Commission and the ECJ would take note of our differentiated federalist and democratic processes! Indeed, centrist politicians from the mountain cantons even believe that Brussels might give its approval to Switzerland’s independent regulation of water royalties and property rights concerning hydroelectric power plants (Centre Party. Consultation Response, pp. 19f.). The Trade Association, in turn, would like the federal government to provide “guarantees for democratic participation and measures to relieve the burden on SMEs.”
  Unrealistic wishful thinking over and over again! In the authoritarian EU system, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice dictate the terms. The idea that a national parliament or the member states could issue “guidelines” to their governments vis-à-vis Brussels’ supremacy is beyond absurd. When it comes to “decision shaping” regarding the creation of new EU law, the head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) might, at best, sit alongside 27 ministers from EU countries, but would have virtually no say. The pro forma involvement of the Conference of Cantonal Governments (KdK) and the parliamentary foreign policy committees does not, in reality, protect us from significant legal changes slipping through and becoming Swiss law directly – not to mention direct democracy. Surely the Swiss cantons, parties, and associations cannot want this!
  “It is not enough for the people’s rights to be enshrined in the constitution; they must also count in practice. And that is not possible if we are institutionally tied to the EU. Reading the explanatory notes to the EU treaties clearly shows that the Federal Council is saying things that are not true. They make believe that everything will continue as before. Anyone who supports the treaties would logically have to say that they consider direct democracy antiquated.” (Oliver Zimmer)⁴  •

¹ See “Swiss Farmers’ Union: Securing agricultural sovereignty with the EU agreement?” In: Current Concerns No 22 of 21 October 2025 https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2025/nr-22-14-oktober-2025-1/schweizer-bauernverband-sicherung-der-landwirtschaftlichen-souveraenitaet-mit-dem-eu-vertrag
² “Vorstand des Gewerbeverbands beurteilt EU-Verträge kritisch und empfiehlt eine Abstimmung mit Ständemehr (Trade Association Executive Board critically assesses EU treaties and recommends a vote with a majority of cantons.” Press release of 17 October 2025
³ Die Mitte. “Vernehmlassung: Paket ‘Stabilisierung und Weiterentwicklung der Beziehungen Schweiz–EU’ – Bilaterale III (Centre Party: Consultation: Package ‘Stabilising and Further Development of the Bilateral Approach - Relations between Switzerland and the EU’ – Bilateral Agreements III.)” Summary. 29 October 2025
⁴ Fontana, Katharina. “Oliver Zimmer: ‘Es entwickelt sich eine soziale Zweiteilung in der Schweiz – man muss nicht Sozialist sein, um das zu erkennen (A social divide is developing in Switzerland – you don’t have to be a socialist to see that.’)” In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 21 October 2025