Swiss parties clash over EU treaty double-majority vote

Swiss parties are divided over whether the EU treaty package should require approval by both voters and the cantons, SRF reported after a televised Arena debate ahead of the package’s discussion in the Council of States.

The treaty text itself can no longer be changed, but the accompanying domestic measures remain open to revision. The main disputes concern the cantonal majority, protection against dismissal for employee representatives and the free movement of people.

The question is whether the package should require only a popular majority or also a majority of the cantons. Swiss People’s Party National Councillor Barbara Steinemann said the double majority was essential because the package would involve the dynamic adoption of EU law, affect direct democracy and influence Switzerland’s federal structures. She also said it would make immigration to Switzerland easier.

Centre Party Council of States member Marianne Binder disagreed, saying she was guided by the Constitution. In her view, the Constitution defines when a cantonal majority is required and when a popular majority is sufficient. Socialist Council of States member Eva Herzog also said the package did not involve joining a supranational organisation and therefore did not require a cantonal majority.

FDP National Councillor Hans-Peter Portmann likewise opposed the cantonal vote. “I am strongly opposed to changing the rules of the game while the game is being played,” he said, arguing that the demand for a cantonal majority was an attempt to do so.

The debate also focused on measure 14 of the domestic accompanying measures. It would provide stronger protection against dismissal for employee representatives, who are elected to negotiate with employers, for example in cases of mass redundancies.

Gabriela Medici, co-secretary-general of the Swiss Trade Union Federation, called the protection essential. An employee representative both works for the company and is elected to represent and advocate for its employees, she said, making the person vulnerable to retaliation.

Portmann described the proposal as a threat to the free-market economy. He said the protection would deprive employers of their freedom to make decisions.

The participants also disagreed over the free movement of people. Binder said it was linked to the bilateral approach and was therefore essential. Herzog said it was important to ensure that Swiss hospitals had enough staff. Portmann said it also guaranteed access to the free market.

Steinemann rejected that view, saying Switzerland did not necessarily need free movement and could instead use quotas, as it had done for many years.