by Dr iur. Marianne Wüthrich
The National Council and the Council of States approved three notable agreements in the spring session: a trilateral gas agreement with Germany and Italy, a financial agreement with the UK and a trade and economic partnership agreement between the EFTA states and the Republic of India. All three agreements must also be approved by the other parliaments involved before they can enter into force. The fact that they can be concluded by Switzerland at all shows how important it is for our country to be as independent as possible from blocs and powers of all kinds.
Gas agreement with Germany
and Italy – a contract at eye level
The conclusion of this agreement is almost revolutionary: two EU member states are concluding a treaty with Switzerland on an equal footing, without any bureaucratic fuss from Brussels, as we have always done among neighbours in the past. In March 2025, the National Council and Council of States approved the trilateral solidarity agreement. It is intended to regulate reciprocal gas supplies in emergency situations - so that hospitals and households can be supplied with a stable supply of gas even in acute crises, for example.1 A welcome development, not only for the Swiss energy supply, but also as an exemplary model of how we as an independent country can shape relations with our neighbouring countries. The gas agreement was already discussed in Current Concerns No. 26 of 17 December 2024, after the Council of States (the smaller of the two chambers of the Swiss Federal Assembly) had been the first to approve it.
In an interview with Current Concerns, National Councillor Franz Grüter, member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council, expressed the significance of the agreement in terms of constitutional law and sovereignty policy in such apt words that we are reproducing them here: “Yes, that is a good example of how important issues for our country can also be resolved directly with other states. I advocate good relations with the whole of Europe. Europe is not just the EU. We should maintain good relations; we want to trade in our mutual interest. We can also conclude individual agreements. But these agreements should be on an equal footing, they must be terminable and we will not allow anything to be imposed on us, especially not the automatic adoption of EU law. This gas agreement is a great example of a genuine bilateral agreement where both sides benefit. This is how I essentially see the future.”
Financial agreement
with Great Britain – regulation
of bilateral relations after Brexit
In the final vote of the spring session on 21 March 2025, the two chambers of parliament approved an agreement between Switzerland and the UK on the mutual recognition of financial services without dissenting votes.2 This will allow Swiss banks to operate across borders in the UK, for example as asset managers.
This agreement is part of the so-called “Mind the Gap” strategy between Switzerland and the UK. Since Brexit, the two countries have already concluded nine agreements to replace the previous bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the EU, allowing them to avoid legal gaps and maintain mutual rights and obligations.3 For example, one year before the UK left the EU in February 2019, it was agreed that the rights of residence under the EU Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons would continue to apply to British nationals living in Switzerland at the time, and vice versa. Every year, the Federal Council sets quotas for the immigration of workers from the UK, which are distributed among the cantons; for 2025, as in previous years, this is 3,500.4 The new financial agreement is part of this regulatory framework. Obviously, the bilateral relationship between the two countries works well and without problems – without the bureaucratic superstructure of the European Union – everything is negotiated on an equal footing and in the interests of both sides.
Economic Partnership Agreement
between the EFTA States and India –
more than just a free trade agreement
It took 16 years of negotiations between the EFTA states and India to reach today’s result. In the final vote on March 21, 2025, the Council of States approved the TEPA (Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement) by 39 votes to 2 with 4 abstentions, while the National Council voted 130 to 33 with 28 abstentions.5 India, like many other countries in the Global South, is rightly no longer willing to enter into agreements with Western industrialised countries that do not give it an equal share of the benefits.
100 billion dollars investment
and one million jobs for India
The unique thing about this agreement is it combines a trade agreement with extensive investment promotion. Niklaus-Samuel Gugger (Centre, ZH), committee spokesperson in the National Council, stated on 20 March 2025: “I deliberately emphasise the word ‘partnership’ because this agreement goes beyond a classic free trade agreement.” In the Council of States debate on 3 December 2024, the new approach was praised as follows: “It is the chapter on investment promotion and cooperation that makes the agreement with India an innovative and also courageous agreement [...]. The Swiss negotiating team has broken new ground here. It is an approach that we have not seen before, an approach that has made the breakthrough possible. Without this chapter, the agreement would certainly not have been reached. The core of the chapter is the joint goal of Switzerland and the EFTA states to trigger 100 billion dollars in private investment and create one million jobs over the next 15 years.” (Tiana-Angelina Moser, GLP, ZH, Committee spokesperson in the Council of States on 3 December 2024)
Actually, India would have liked to have been granted concessions on the immigration of workers. However, since Switzerland has to accept tens of thousands of workers from EU countries every year under the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons with the EU, it has little leeway to make binding commitments to other countries. By creating new jobs in India, Switzerland can solve this dilemma to a certain extent.
Minority motion in the National Council:
Better protection of the environment,
climate und social standards
There was disagreement in the National Council regarding the effectiveness of the environmental and labour standards in the agreement. It does state that “international obligations in the areas of labour, environment and climate protection should be respected” and that in particular “environmental and labour standards must not be lowered in order to promote trade”. However, this provision did not go far enough for the left-wing side of the National Council. In a minority motion, Farah Rumy (SP, SO) called for the Federal Council to issue an ordinance to ensure that “investments in accordance with Article 7.1 of the free trade agreement must not be made at the expense of the environment, climate and social standards”. She added that “Switzerland must not be jointly responsible for financing discrimination or environmental destruction with Swiss capital.”
However, this motion was rejected by the majority of the National Council on 20 March. But it is important that the SP and the Greens keep putting forward their point of view.
EFTA countries lead the way
For Switzerland and the other EFTA states (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), the advantage of non-EU membership and certainly also their non-colonial past is evident here. As the Commission spokesperson in the Council of States noted, the TEPA is “India’s first agreement with European partners. Neither the EU nor the UK have yet been able to conclude their negotiations with India. It is Switzerland, as a member of EFTA, that is leading the way.”
According to the unanimous opinion of the Federal Council and Parliament, the negotiated tariff reductions are a key point for the Swiss export industry, which is struggling with the strong franc: “From Switzerland’s point of view, the most important part of the agreement is probably the improved market access in trade in goods for almost 95 % of products. For almost 85 % of products, all customs duties will be abolished after the deadline. Today, the majority of tariffs amount to around 20 per cent.” (Tiana-Angelina Moser)
In return, Switzerland already assured India duty-free market access for all industrial products a few years ago, which is confirmed in the new agreement. Hardly any conflicting interests are to be expected in agriculture, as India and the EFTA states produce very different agricultural products. •
1 https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20240075
2 https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/amtliches-bulletin/amtliches-bulletin-die-verhandlungen?SubjectId=67665
3 Federal Council. “Swiss–UK relations post Brexit”. https://www.eda.admin.ch/europa/de/home/zwischenstaatliche-beziehungen/bilaterale-laenderbeziehungen/efta-uk/vereinigtes-koenigreich/brexit.html
4 Bundesrat legt unveränderte Drittstaatenkontingente für 2025 fest. (Federal Council sets unchanged third-country quotas for 2025). Press release of 27 November 2024
5 https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/amtliches-bulletin/amtliches-bulletin-die-verhandlungen?SubjectId=67666
Council of States says no to the cancellation of UNRWA contributions
mw. It was a positive surprise in the spring session of the Swiss Parliament: The Council of States rejected, by 25 votes to 19, the unspeakable motion from the National Council, which would have immediately suspended contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This puts the proposal off the table.
Particularly encouraging: From all other parties there were votes against the SVP’s motion, i.e., for Switzerland’s humanitarian commitment and international credibility. In addition to the SP, the Greens, and the Green Liberals, the large number of members of the Centre Party (9 out of 14 – the Centre is by far the strongest faction in the Council of States) was particularly notable. Three FDP members also voted against. The sometimes impressive statements give hope that the horse has not bolted for humanitarian Switzerland.
Excerpts from two votes will be singled out here.
Franziska Roth (SP, SO): “The payment freeze would have dramatic consequences in several respects – for the people there, but also for Switzerland. For the people there, it means hunger, little or no medical care, and death. And for Switzerland? Doesn’t it mean for us to put on Trump’s boots and thus take a momentous step toward destabilising the world? I think so. Human rights, international law, humanitarian aid – these three concepts are, in my opinion, more Swiss than the Eiger, Mönch, and Jungfrau [the famous Swiss mountains]. Precisely because we, as a voluntary nation, have repeatedly affirmed human rights, international law, and humanitarian aid and have been able to help shape them ourselves, we have been able to incorporate our Swiss DNA into them.”
Colonna Report: No Involvement
of UNRWA in Hamas Attacks
Regarding respect for the rule of law, Council of States member Isabelle Chassot refers to the Colonna report, which clearly revealed that UNRWA’s alleged involvement in the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, was unproven. She is rightly concerned that some Council colleagues ignore this finding and persistently claim that UNRWA is affiliated with Hamas. The rule of law DNA is apparently not fully anchored in some parliamentarians.
Isabelle Chassot (Centre, FR): “Considering UNRWA as an organisation potentially linked to terrorism [...] is to ignore the in-depth investigations conducted by the UN following the events of October 7, 2023, in particular the investigations entrusted to former French Foreign Minister Colonna, which concerned 12 – later 19 – out of 13,000 employees. The conclusions of this report are unequivocal regarding the UN agency’s non-involvement. I invite you to read this available report”. (Original French, translation by Current Concerns)
UNRWA is indispensable
Isabelle Chassot also corrects the persistent claim that other organisations could take over UNRWA’s tasks. The hearings conducted by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Council of States (FAC-S) have “not identified any credible short-term alternative to the humanitarian aid and educational work that UNRWA provides to millions of people throughout the Middle East, 75 per cent of whom are women and children.” Rather, she argues, UNRWA is “the only organisation capable of providing humanitarian aid, running clinics and hospitals, and providing children with schooling. […] Currently, the catastrophic health and nutritional situation affecting 2 million people in the Gaza Strip – these people are in survival mode – requires urgent assistance that only UNRWA can provide. […] In this situation, the issue is not UNRWA, Hamas, or Israel, but rather the protection of the population within the framework of the Geneva Conventions. If Parliament rejects the motion, it will stand on the side of respect for international humanitarian law by protecting the severely affected population and ensuring their access to humanitarian assistance”.
Focusing on Switzerland’s strengths
Council of States member Isabelle Chassot adds: “The only political response we can give is to remember what has always constituted Switzerland’s strength: the strength of the law, not the law of might. As the seat of the United Nations and as the depositary state of the Geneva Conventions, Switzerland has always championed respect for international law, especially international humanitarian law”.
It is good that the Small Chamber of the Federal Parliament once again lived up to its reputation as a “chambre de réflexion”.
Our website uses cookies so that we can continually improve the page and provide you with an optimized visitor experience. If you continue reading this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Further information regarding cookies can be found in the data protection note.
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.