[ad_1]
content
The National Council discussed the EU framework agreement in an extraordinary session. The fronts were clear.
On November 11, the Federal Council defined its position on the framework agreement, but did not communicate it publicly. The Federal Council does not want to reveal its position to “preserve Switzerland’s room for maneuver.” This was justified by the spokesman for the Federal Council, André Simonazzi.
Due to various other open files, the EU Commission currently does not have time to discuss clarifications in the areas of wage protection, Union Citizenship Directive and state aid. According to the head of the FDFA, Ignazio Cassis, that will change in the coming days.
Without “plan B” with a no
For the PS, improvements in wage protection in particular are essential, as the leader of the parliamentary group Roger Nordmann (VD) said. Sibel Arslan (Greens / BS) asked the Federal Council to “clarify the open points as soon as possible”. Hans-Peter Portmann (FDP / ZH) wants to give clarifications a chance. “The Swiss people must be able to vote on the result.”
Roland Fischer (GLP / LU) was of the same opinion. On behalf of his group he spoke of a “good contract”. Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter (CVP / BL) was more critical: “Without further concessions, the treaty will not find a majority in parliament or in the people.” Because there is no plan B, it is not yet clear what will happen if the deal doesn’t go through.
The message is not sufficient for the SVP
The state government wants to continue the process of concluding the agreement and adopting a message in 2021, as indicated in the annual goals. That’s too vague for the SVP: In one proposal, it demanded that the clarifications be recorded in the contract text.
The Federal Council gave the impression that it could be satisfied with non-binding EU statements, said Andreas Glarner, a spokesman for SVP. The necessary legal certainty with regard to open points can only be achieved by making adjustments to the text of the contract itself. Cassis replied that it was not the form that was decisive, but the content.
The Federal Council wants to clarify open points
The Federal Council has been working with the cantons and the social partners since the summer of 2019 to find comprehensive solutions to the problems that still need to be clarified. “The Federal Council will only sign the institutional agreement if there are satisfactory solutions to the open points,” Cassis promised.
This presupposes that the solutions are binding on both parties, so as to guarantee the necessary legal certainty. Therefore, the request for the motion has already been honored. The great chamber rejected the proposal by 111 votes to 64 and 19 abstentions. This is off the table.
Aeschi wants a “relationship at eye level”
With a second motion, the SVP parliamentary group demanded not to sign the institutional agreement with the EU, to cancel the project and to inform the EU of it clearly and unequivocally. The outcome of the negotiations was unacceptable, said the leader of the parliamentary group Thomas Aeschi.
He advocated “equal relations” with the EU, and dynamic legal adoption contradicted this. The National Council also rejected this motion, with 142 votes to 52. The Council of States also has an extraordinary session on the program on Thursday.
