[ad_1]
The Council of States is increasing pressure on the Federal Council in the framework agreement; furthermore, there are new divisions in the bourgeois camp.
The Foreign Policy Commission of the Council of States has a clear expectation of the Federal Council, as its president, the FDP Council of States of the FDP Damian Müller underlines: “I hope they will tighten these specifications so that they can obtain the majority.”
But what details, on what topics? So far, the Federal Council has spoken of more precise information on accompanying measures, the Union Citizens Directive and state aid. But last week, CVP president Gerhard Pfister reported on additional fundamental concerns: The framework agreement is putting Swiss sovereignty at risk.
Strong criticism of CVP
Müller was not at all happy with this request to speak. Two years ago, the Federal Council held a consultation with all parties. “If the party presidents are now making new demands, they have not done their job in the consultation. Or they want to take their party to a conservative corner to win a share of the vote. “
The FDP Müller Council of States criticizes Pfister’s advance: CVP is torpedoing the framework agreement to distinguish itself as a party.
Keystone
In addition to Pfister, Beat Rieder is also addressed. But the conservative Valais Council of States CVP firmly rejects the accusation. The parliamentary group CVP made it clear from the beginning that “the automatic adoption of rights in a dispute resolution procedure that does not respect the sovereignty of Switzerland is a serious point.”
The CVP around the party chairman, Pfister, previously expressed his opinion on sovereignty. But this fundamental critique of the dynamic adoption of the law and the dispute resolution proposal is new.
Keystone
Therefore, the FDP has to rely more on the SP. Schützenhilfe comes from its president Christian Levrat: “I do not find the dispute resolution mechanism problematic in itself. Its areas of application are much more problematic. “
A failure of the framework agreement would not be a drama for me.
This statement is interesting because Levrat is also distancing himself from the unions. Like CVP, they have recently strongly criticized the dynamic legal adoption and proposed dispute resolution with the dominant role of the ECJ.
Levrat doesn’t go that far. For him, it must be guaranteed that the accompanying measures to protect wages are not covered by the agreement: “A clear regulation is necessary to ensure that the accompanying measures are left as they are. And there must be scope to expand the measures. “
The term “immunization” has come up in recent days to make them more precise. But this is just a new term for an old concept: namely, that areas are defined that are not covered by the agreement.
I felt a willingness to compromise behind closed doors in Brussels.
The question then is how aggressively the Federal Council demands such immunizations against the EU and what consequences it is willing to accept if the EU does not give in. Levrat says: “The Federal Council has to deal with a plan B. That is part of a smart negotiation. A failure of the framework agreement would not be a drama for me. ”Only those who accept failure can put pressure on their opponents.
Müller, Chairman of APK, replied: “Without these three specifications, which are also clearly regulated according to Swiss principles, the framework agreement will have no chance at the national level. But the Federal Council now has this responsibility. “
Make the legs of the Federal Council and play poker to pressure the opponent. But do not overload the renegotiations framework with demands on new issues, that is the motto of the FDP and the SP.
Keystone
Müller is confident that the EU is ready to approach Switzerland. She was recently on a trip to the EU headquarters in Brussels as part of a parliamentary trip: “I felt the will to commit myself behind closed doors.” It would be good news for a possible framework agreement.
