EU - Switzerland relations

Das Verhältnis der Schweiz zur Europäischen Union (EU) ist angespannt. Nicht nur im Bezug auf die Umsetzung der Masseneinwanderungsinitiative. Die EU verlangt von der Schweiz schon viel länger, den bilateralen Verträgen einen institutionellen Rahmen zu geben, welcher unter anderem die Übernahme von neuem EU-Recht in den Bereichen der bilateralen Verträge regeln soll.
Um diese Forderung nach einem Rahmenabkommen zu verstehen, lohnt sich ein Blick auf die Funktionsweise der Schweizer Europapolitik in der Vergangenheit. Bereits heute geht der bilaterale Weg mit gesetzgeberischen Tätigkeiten einher, welche in der Schweizer Öffentlichkeit nicht diskutiert werden.

Relations between Switzerland and the European Union are in bad shape and the Swiss are tearing each other apart on this issue. There are two major issues at stake.
First, the Swiss government is dithering over whether or not to initial a new Institutional agreement with the European Union (EU), although it was finalized by the negotiators in November 2018. In the event of non-acceptance by Switzerland, the European Union has already announced retaliatory measures. Secondly, in September 2020, Swiss citizens will have to vote on a popular initiative to scrap the agreement on the free movement of persons between Switzerland and the EU. A positive vote would sound the death knell for the bilateral treaties between both entities as they are bound together by a guillotine clause. These difficulties between Switzerland and the EU are certainly not new. But two fresh developments have arisen. On the one hand, the support of the socialists and trade unionists for the bilateral way is waning. On the other hand, the European Union has become less flexible than it previously was. The worst should, logically, be avoided
because the Swiss have always been a pragmatic people and solutions are relatively easy to find. But an accumulation of blunders, combined with misperceptions of the actual power relations, could prove fatal.

This paper explores the Swiss National Museum in Zürich by questioning whether it is a builder of nationhood, or a collector of culture. Particularly, it explores how the SNM uses artifacts to represent Switzerland and Swiss history to its many foreign and national visitors, while simultaneously negotiating the country’s position as a champion of heritage, and the idea of the Swiss National Museum as a contact zone for a multitude of global complexities and cultures.

Relations between Switzerland and the European Union are currently stalled. Two main issues are at stake. The first is the “institutional dimension”. It means that the EU demands an adjustment of the mechanisms that govern the relationship with Switzerland. The second question relates to immigration. It results from the referendum of February 2014 which set limits on the establishment of foreign citizens in Switzerland. Such a measure is in contradiction with the bilateral agreement on the free movement of persons with the EU.
This articles proposes innovative solutions to get out of the current impasse.

This article seeks to establish whether the British and Swiss objections to the new European external governance reveal an increasing intransigence on the part of the EU. The question arises because, almost for the first time in history, the EU schemes to manage its neighbourhood are facing serious setbacks.
This analysis shows, however, that the failures of the EU proposals for a “deal” with the United Kingdom and for an institutional agreement with Switzerland are not the result of an increase in the EU intransigence.
The detailed study of the two agreements with London and Bern demonstrates that they do not contain any real new requirements compared to the previous agreements concluded by the EU.
Thus, the British and Swiss reluctances stem mainly from the specificities of these two countries and the perception by a large part of their populations that they can resist pressure from the EU.

What explains the adoption of two different policies on equal pay by gender (EPG) and by nationality (EPN) in Switzerland? And why is the liberal, litigation-based, equal pay policy regime set up by the Gender Equality Act of 1996 much less effective than the neo-corporatist 'accompanying measures' to the Bilateral EU–Switzerland Agreement on Free Movement of Persons adopted in 1999 to ensure equal pay for workers of different national origins? The formation of two different policy regimes cannot be explained by different levels of political will. Equally, different 'varieties of capitalism' cannot explain the setup of the two different equal pay policy regimes within the very same country. Instead, our qualitative comparative analysis across time suggests that the differences can be best explained by a particular constellation of attributes, namely, the use of different policy frames – i.e. 'anti-discrimination' in the EPG and 'unfair competition' in the EPN case – and the different setting of interest politics epitomised by the opposite stances adopted by Switzerland’s employer associations in the two cases.

This dissertation considers whether Switzerland is violating or will violate the provisions of the EU-CH Agreement on the free movement of persons. In order to do so, it analyzes two popular initiatives of constitutional amendment: one at the federal level, the other at the cantonal level. Moreover, it discusses whether General Principles of EU Law are an impediment to the renegotiation of the agreement. The analysis suggests that there is no breach at the moment, mainly because of the governments’ (at both levels) unwillingness to commit violations. Yet, especially in the Canton of Ticino, the pressure to move in that direction is strong, despite the ineffectiveness of the proposed norms. There is a significant number of considerations indicating the intention to export on the one hand, and to accept, on the other, the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice to Switzerland. The wording of the agreement replicates that of EU Law, even though jurisprudence is keen on affirming that the acquis communautaire applies to Switzerland with some limitations. However, some principles – such as non-discrimination – enjoy a very extensive interpretation and are believed to be non-negotiable.

Switzerland is unique in its reluctance to join the EU. Indeed, all governments and parliaments in Europe have at least once in their history sought to become a member. This is not the case for Switzerland, which has never started accession negotiations and does not intend to do so soon. Currently the debate is between supporters of maintaining bilateral agreements with the EU and rejectionists who are even ready to give it up. Thus, paradoxically, the British Eurosceptics, who modeled the bilateral agreements between Switzerland and Switzerland, would appear in Switzerland as integrators. To clarify this very particular case, this chapter is based on an analysis grid composed of several levels of explanations (historical, political and economic). The results obtained show that the political theories of euroscepticism are not sufficiently developed to explain this Swiss phenomenon.

Immigrants make up more than a third of the Swiss population. Of these, 28% are 1st generation foreigners, the remaining 7% belong to the second generation. These are the main data provided by the National Statistic Office about the demographic composition of the population

"La Confédération helvétique est  le pays qui est le moins favorable à une participation au projet de construction européenne.  Il constitue l’Etat qui est le plus réticent à la sorte de « contrat social » qui fonde ce projet.

L’intérêt didactique du contre-exemple suisse est de rappeler que la création et le développement de l’Union européenne ne résultent pas d’une « nécessité » historique.

L’intégration européenne est bien la conséquence de choix sous forme d’engagements et de contrats qui auraient pu être différents.

Le cas suisse a ainsi la vertu de remettre en cause certaines conceptions déterministes de la construction européenne.

L’intérêt du contre-exemple suisse est de rappeler que la participation à l’UE a résulté de choix politiques, que ceux-ci auraient pu être différents et qu’il peut être intellectuellement fructueux de s’imaginer ce que serait l’Europe sans l’Union européenne.

""""

""The author guides us expertly through the thickets of referendums (no fewer than fourteen from 1972) in which Swiss citizens have been given the opportunity to pass judgment on the European question.

Most importantly, this volume explains why the Swiss still oppose joining the European Union.

It examines the thorny questions of identity, reservations on policy matters (preserving neutrality, direct democracy and Swiss style federalism), not to mention doubts regarding the economy.

Paradoxically, the closer Switzerland gets to the EU through bilateral agreements, the more distant prospects of joining the EU seem to become.

This is the conundrum at the heart of the relationship between the Swiss Confederation and the European Union which is expertly explored in this volume.""