print close

Should Switzerland automatically have to adopt EU law in future?

In a big PR campaign on 7 June, Swiss Television announced in the evening news that the Federal Council had agreed in principle to the framework agreement with the EU.
ds. It is well known that the EU has a serious democratic deficit. This applies in particular to the legislative procedure. After a proper legislative procedure, the elected European Parliament has no right of initiative, which means that the parliamentarians elected by the people cannot bring forward any legislative proposals, but only submit proposals to the Commission, which then decides autonomously whether it wants to accept them. The citizens of the member states are thus practically incapacitated, because the EU Commission is appointed by the governments of the member states without direct elections and it has the sole right of initiative.
In addition, contrary to the ordinary legislative procedure with one or two public readings in the EU Council and Parliament, depending on the source, 80 to 90 per cent of the laws are negotiated behind closed doors in so-called “informal trilogy procedures” and then are only nodded through by the Council and Parliament. The trilogy procedure is not regulated by law anywhere. It is used by lobbyists and representatives of associations to assert their interests – in case of doubt for the “big money”. EU laws prevent individual member states from protecting their domestic economies or public services and from promoting local and regional businesses.
Anyone who has so far been of the opinion that today’s EU is a misguided development of a project based on peace, freedom and democracy will be disappointed after reading the interview with Philip de Villiers and the review of his book1 by Rita Müller-Hill in Current Concerns No. 10 from 30 April.
According to Villiers, it is obvious “that the ‘founding fathers’ did not correspond to the sacred image of the mythological narrative”. It was done by people who were weakened and dependent in the hands of the Americans. “The Americans wanted an additional market with an executive commission, that is, a technical, post-political authority, led by officials and independent of state control.” The “Monnet Method” was conspiratorial and directed against the people. As president of the Committee for the United States of Europe, Monnet received “secret payments through the ‘Ford Foundation’ from ‘CIA circles’ and through an account at the Chase Manhattan Bank.”
The European Community was not a goal in itself for him. It was important to him “that the old nations of the past with their respective sovereignty should no longer be the framework in which the current problems are solved”. In the community as such he only saw a “stage on the way to organisational forms of the world of tomorrow”.
If the Federal Council agrees in principle to the adoption of EU law, present and future, and demands only a few changes of detail, and if we contrast this concentration of power in Brussels with the fine web of direct democracy, which is intended to prevent abuse of power, does this not raise the question of whether this does not fulfill the condition of treason?    •

1    de Villiers, Philippe. J’ai ´tiré sur le fil du mensonge et tout est venu. Paris Fayard, 2019. (I pulled on a thread of the web of lies, and it all came to light).”