“International treaties before the people!” – The alignment of our foreign policy is a significant democratic affair

by Dr iur. Marianne Wüthrich

In recent decades, the Federal Council and parliamentary majority have concluded a large number of international treaties, which left deep scars in the foundations of our governmental structure, without any chance that we, the politically interested citizens could obtain any information, let alone would have been able to express our views. In particular, Switzerland’s ever closer integration into the EU regulatory network is steering our state ship in a direction over which we seem to lose direct democratic control the longer the more.

The Swiss population has long been highly alarmed by the insidiousness of this approach. According to the arguments put forward by the people’s initiative, more and more EU legislation is being adopted by the Swiss legal system, even though Switzerland “at least formally has not relinquished any sovereign rights to the EU”. Especially in some recent agreements, Switzerland actually commits itself to take on the further development of EU law (AUNS, leaflet, p. 15).

Because of this development it is absolutely necessary to change course and to steer into the opposite direction.

In its voting “brochure” the Federal Council claims that “the extension of the mandatory referendum was unnecessary, because direct democracy already applies to the treaties.” Indeed, the councilors subject each year ten to twenty international agreements to the optional referendum, because they meet one of the requirements of Article 141, paragraph 1d of the Federal Constitution (see article by Rene Roca). In 2009 these were twelve submittals in total. However, only in two of those cases the referendum was put forward; in the three previous years no treaty came to a vote (Botschaft des Bundesrates – Message of the Federal Council – 10 Oct 2010, BBI 2010, p. 6975). The Federal Council seems to have drawn the erroneous conclusion that voters are not interested in many international treaties, because otherwise the optional referendum would be put forward more frequently.

Politically interested citizens want to vote on all major international treaties

This interpretation is by far mistaken. I personally, and many other citizens, would like to vote on all state treaties which will result in important changes to our legal system if accepted, without the need to collect 50,000 signatures each time. Have you ever organized a referendum vote? Such an effort cannot be afforded by even the most committed citizens, not even by the well-organized political parties every day! And how dare the Federal Council assert that provided the people’s initiative was accepted, “undisputed” agreements would further have to be submitted to a vote? How does the Federal Council know what submittals are undisputed? This is exactly what the people and cantons decide at the ballot box.

What are “important” agreements? This is not so hard to decide!

In its message the Federal Council wonders which agreements are actually considered as “important” according to text of the initiative: “Are all agreements that Switzerland wants to conclude with the EU important just on the basis of the fact that they concern European politics? Is the agreement on statistics less important than the agreement on the fight against fraud? Is – always in European-political context – air traffic more important than research funding?” (Message, ​​p. 6978f)

In the same message the same Federal Council tells us that this issue has already been clarified, as today’s optional treaty referendum in accordance with Article 141 BV applies among other issues to agreements that “contain important legislative provisions”:

“Although the application of the new constitutional rules had raised several questions of interpretation shortly after coming into force, the meanwhile developed practice of the Federal Council and Federal Assembly has been consolidated. There have not been fundamental differences of opinion or public debate over the question whether a treaty is to be subject to a referendum.” (Message, p. 6969f.)

So, all clear – then why the hue and cry?

Examples of article 140, paragraph 1, d (new)

on subparagraph 1

An example of the commitment to direct takeover of foreign law: the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights).

on subparagraph 2 

Examples of the obligation to change the domestic law: all the bilateral treaties between Switzerland/EU, all double taxation agreements.

on subparagraph 3

Example of the obligation to submit to foreign courts: so-called Joint Committees in the bilateral agreements under which EU law is exclusively applicable.

on subparagraph 4 

Example of large payments to foreign countries: parliament increases 6 billion Swiss francs contribution to the IMF to 10 billion to help mend the ever enlarging euro hole.

Treaties, which would have had to be submitted to the mandatory referendum during the last years:

Of course all bilateral agreements with the EU are important – particularly because they all have more or less drastic effects on our legal system – of course they are to be submitted to people and cantons compulsorily for approval or non-approval, namely each individually, not in a package, as it was the case with the bilateral treaties I for tactical reasons. However, in addition there are other extremely important treaties.

The bilateral treaties I (in force since 2002)

• Free movement of persons: the labor markets are to be opened (consequences are known)

• Technical barriers to trade: an easier admission of products

• Public procurement: broader access to the European buying market (duty of Federation, cantons and municipalities to accept the most favourable bid EU-wide instead of Swiss SME for their infrastructure plans)

• Agriculture: simplified trade of certain products (cheap goods flood the Swiss market)

• Land transport: Opening of the markets for traffic and rail transport (40-and 60-tons trucks flood in unreasonable number our country, in contradiction to “The article on the protection of the Alps”, article 84 FC)

• Air traffic: mutual access to the airline market (for protection of the Swiss-Air it was supposedly absolutely necessary – today only Lufthansa exists, which has access to the airline market anyway, for this reason Germany maltreats us with their rigid flight regime)

•  Research: Swiss participation in the EU Framework Programs for Research; expenses: 2.4 billion francs for 6 years (2007–2013) (integration in EU programs for a lot of money, without controlling possibility for us citizens)

The bilateral treaties II (the agreements have gradually come into force since 2005)

• Schengen/Dublin: Lifting of the border controls, intended coordination of the asylum system (does not work till this day)

• Taxation of savings interest (primarily payments of Switzerland to the EU)

• Fight against fraud: Fight against offences like smuggling (Among other things Swiss companies can be made submit their accountancy to EU investigators.)

• Agricultural processing products: Reduction of customs and export subsidies for products of the food industry (Cheap goods flood the Swiss market.)

• Environment: participation in the EU-Environment-Agency (Swiss environmental legislation, however, is widely stricter.)

• Statistics: Harmonisation and exchange of statistical dates (data security?)

• MEDIA: Access to the EU support for filmmakers (Switzerland could pay their contributions to Swiss filmmakers for less money directly, but then our decision makers could not be avoided.)

• Education: Participation in EU-educational programmes (with serious results for our education system)

• Retirement pensions: Elimination of the double taxation (for pensioners of the EU management with residence in Switzerland: They pay their taxes to the EU while living here tax-free.)

Additional current international agreements of fundamental importance:

• European Economic Area (EEA) referendum in 1992: EEA was submitted “for political reasons”, so voluntarily, the mandatory plebiscite and was rejected by people and cantons.

• Access to WTO: Connection of Switzerland with the limitless global market (The referendum did not take place because nobody really committed himself to it – therefore, a contract with so serious results is valid just by simple parliament decision.)

• Cassis de Dijon: one-sided admission of products from the whole EU space whose production corresponds merely to the EU regulations (The referendum did not come about, the negative results are becoming apparent more and more.)

• Partnership for Peace (PfP) and Euro-Atlantic Partnership (EAPC):

Cooperation with NATO, accession in 1996 or in 1997, since so-called voluntary adaptation of the Swiss army to NATO for the purpose of possibility of common deployment like KFOR in Kosovo (by simple decision of the Federal Council, through circumvention of parliament and people)

• Cooperation agreement with the European defensive agency (EVA) with regard to EU arms projects as well as the purchase and maintenance of armament (approved by the Federal Council on the 15 February 2012, without parliament)

• Financial contributions amounting to billions into the EU pot and to the IMF

• Numerous double taxation treaties: Switzerland promises withholding taxes on interests of foreign account owners to a huge number of states or they promise to break the banking secrecy, while they answer so-called group enquiries to foreign countries (continually finished since those financial difficulties of other states, though not caused by Switzerland).

Examples of future treaties on which the people must vote by all means:

• Agrarian agreement Switzerland-EU (result would be a massive decline of farming in Switzerland.)

• Electricity market agreements (cross-border European market in favor of the big electricity groups, with serious results for our smaller, locally embedded electricity producers)

• Changes in the company taxation (cantonal law which the Federation is not permitted to negotiate)

• Framework agreements for “peace promotion”: Connection to the common security policy and defence policy (GSVP), current participation in three so-called peace-supporting GSVP applications in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as in Kosovo (in plain terms: Participation in the EU’s war politics; Federal Council member Calmy-Rey wanted a GSVP framework agreement with the EU to “facilitate the administrative expenses” with which she failed so far, the project is currently frozen.)

• Framework agreements to so-called institutional questions (acquisition of EU law on EU order; will be later discussed in Current Concerns in detail.)

The approval of this initiative is an important step, so that people again can give clearer direction to the policy of foreign affairs. Thus the continuing march from “federal Berne” in direction of EU surrender can be stopped, and also the eager bows to foreign tax offices which want to fill their pocket-holes with our money can be prevented by the people.    •

^{(Translation Current Concerns)}