[ad_1]
Royal road or dead end? Or even a patient on her deathbed? And what is football doing in this discussion?
The great metaphors were not saved in yesterday’s “Arena”, which was what seemed like the seventeenth time of the framework agreement with the EU. You couldn’t do that either. Because a framework agreement debate is more on the same level as the explanatory pieces on financial derivatives than on the level of the coffee gossip with Aunt Hildegard. Or to put it metaphorically: it’s dry like old biscuits.
However, we must talk about this “Chnorz”, as the moderator Sandro Brotz said. Because just a few hours after the BGI-No, the president of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, insisted that the consultations continue.
Of course there was talk. With the following guests:
- Thomas Aeschi, leader of the SVP parliamentary group
- Daniel Lampart, Chief Economist of the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (SGB)
- Christa Markwalder, FDP National Councilor
- Jürg Grossen, President of GLP
The selection of the debaters already made people sit down and take note. Because it was not Aeschi against the rest, no, the leader of the SVP parliamentary group had the trade unionist Daniel Lampart in his sidecar. The latter felt compelled to justify himself by this extraordinary constellation: “Actually, I belong to the other side!” Lampart said, half laughing, half desperate.
A dangerous deal
However, it was true that Lampart argued alongside Aeschi. Because both Aeschi and Lampart stressed several times that night that the institutional framework agreement with the EU belongs to the ‘Chüdder’.
The framework agreement is also dangerous for Daniel Lampart (second from left).
© srf
For Daniel Lampart, the framework agreement is unsustainable for one reason in particular: he fears wage dumping. “This deal is extremely dangerous,” Lampart said in a face-to-face conversation with Brotz. If accepted, Switzerland would face wages like in Germany or even Poland. “Our wage protection is eroding,” he prophesied. The accompanying measures, which are supposed to guarantee high wages in Switzerland, would be useless with a framework agreement.
GLP President Jürg Grossen faced strong headwinds. He accused the ominous alliance on the other side that the “far left and far right” arguments would collide like the end of a horseshoe and topple the framework agreement. “This inflicts substantial damage on Switzerland. I find it absolutely irresponsible. “
Over and over “foreign judges”
Christa Markwalder and Jürg Grossen didn’t have an easy job that night. They had to refute, refute and correct reproach after reproach. In addition to salary protection, these are mainly foreign judges. Two words that the SVP seems to have rented for years. And it was Thomas Aeschi who kept raising this issue.
“Swiss sovereignty is at stake,” the senior vice president of the parliamentary group said at the beginning. Switzerland will no longer be able to make its own decisions. “We would have to let the EU dictate what should be applied in Switzerland.” Furthermore, the Court of Justice of the European Communities would have the final say in disputes between the EU and Switzerland.
No referee from Germany
In response to Grossens’ objections that the EU was not a banana republic and Markwalder’s comparison that the referee was also impartial in a soccer match, Aeschi began to verbally throw the ball: “If Germany played soccer against Switzerland would also be better if the referee is not from Germany. “
The national advisor of the FDP Christa Markwalder was able to convince with the framework agreement of the file.
© srf
For Aeschi he was left with this single dream target. The top scorer that night was Christa Markwalder. The National Adviser of the FDP proved time and again that no one is deceiving her with the file of the framework agreement. Sandro Brotz even described Markwalder as “the turbocharger of the Swiss EU.”
Total isolation or accession to the EU
He was able to convincingly explain why wage protection was guaranteed when the deal was concluded, why Swiss Justitia wouldn’t suddenly don an EU chappli, and perhaps most importantly – he came off the defensive and objectively illustrated what a framework agreement with the EU. It would have advantages. “We are in a pragmatic and Swiss middle ground,” Markwalder said. Switzerland’s interests could be protected without having to become a member of the EU.
Despite all his zeal, Markwalder did not seem like a fan of the EU. He was able to admit that clarification was needed in the agreement, for example with the Union Citizens Directive. This would go too far and affect the deportation initiative that people have accepted.
The best vote for an institutional framework agreement came from the audience. Or at least the most Helvetian. Gymi’s teacher, Nino Wilkins, said seriously in two sentences: “Either we have this framework agreement or we find a wall. And this wall has two possibilities: total isolation or accession to the EU ”.
