[ad_1]
The FDP defended the institutional framework agreement with particular clarity. Are you now making a U-turn? Johann Schneider-Ammann gets the go-ahead in the match.
Former Federal Councilor Johann Schneider-Ammann effectively applies the brakes for the media. Why so prominent and why now?
Photo: Urs Flüeler (Keystone)
Johann Schneider-Ammann, a former Federal Councilor since the beginning of 2019, surprised the weekend with a guest contribution on NZZ. In it, the liberal criticizes the result of the negotiations on the institutional framework agreement between Switzerland and the EU. Not only is it necessary to renegotiate certain points, he writes, but the fundamental question of state sovereignty must also be addressed.
The institutional framework agreement has not been officially discussed for months. Negotiations should only continue after the decision on the limitation initiative on Sunday.
Schneider-Ammann’s intervention was astonishing because, of all governmental parties, the FDP had most clearly endorsed the outcome of the negotiation published at the end of 2018. In February 2019, the FDP parliamentary group decided a clear yes to the outcome of the negotiations on the institutional framework agreement. The party announced at that time. The clear decision was probably related to the responsibility of the current FDP Foreign Minister, Ignazio Cassis.
Now former Federal Councilor Schneider-Ammann is hitting the brakes effectively for the media. Why so prominent and why now? Perhaps the timing is important, says Hans-Ulrich Bigler, former member of the FDP National Council and director of the Swiss Trade Association. “He has still been heard now. After the vote, others will comment on it as well. “In any case, Schneider-Ammann’s view has been in full agreement with that of the trade association lately, says Bigler with satisfaction. The trade association is often more critical of the EU than the other large trade associations.
U-turn of the FDP?
Does the Schneider-Ammann statement mark a reversal of the FDP on the European record? “There is no new resolution on this issue,” says the leader of the parliamentary group Beat Walti. In previous discussions with then-Federal Councilor Schneider-Ammann, he always felt his critical stance. The Council of States Damian Müller, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has a similar opinion. “It is his personal opinion that he represents here, and he has always represented it. But as a federal councilor he was also linked to the university. “
National Councilor Hans-Peter Portmann was surprised by the article in NZZ, as he puts it. Portmann is a member of the Foreign Policy Commission and is the file leader of the FDP delegation. He knew nothing of the Schneider-Ammann plan, and other members of the FDP parliamentary group did not know anything either, as they say when asked.
No yes no guarantee
In any case, Schneider-Ammann raises a legitimate concern, says Portmann. “Any bilateral relationship entails a loss of sovereignty. No one knows this better than Johann Schneider-Ammann, who served on the committees of the World Bank, the WTO and others. There is also no dispute resolution in a Swiss court, and no one bothers about it. But it is a fact that with such institutions and treaties we renounce part of our sovereignty. ”
There is no point in judging without a final negotiation outcome, says Portmann, and it is potentially damaging. It is clear that the Federal Council will have to advance the file as of September 28 and demand guarantees from the EU.
The guarantees mean concessions on points that are important to Switzerland: in terms of wage protection, the Union Citizens Directive and state aid. “Until now we always thought that wage protection was the biggest problem,” says Portmann. But it is now clear that the negotiations on the EU Citizens Directive will be even more difficult. And there is no room for maneuver for the FDP. “Only if we get a guarantee from the EU that Switzerland does not have to adopt the Union Citizens Directive in general, can we accept the framework agreement.”
