In the present Form, the Institutional framework agreement (InstA) with the EU, no Chance. The Left rejects it because of the unsatisfactory wage protection, the SVP because of the sovereignty loss. But also many Bourgeois Europe are generally friendly, are not able to agree to the present draft. Because there are six serious vulnerabilities that need to be improved in a renegotiation of:
What happens if there is a dispute? So, what happens if Switzerland does not want to understand a EU regulation? So how this is negotiated, would be convened to a court of arbitration. When it comes to EU law, then this would call in turn the European court of justice (ECJ), and his opinion matters. The judgment of the ECJ would then be for the court of arbitration is binding. Switzerland is not the judgment, then the EU can decide on the appropriate punitive measures, or cancel the contracts. Thus, Switzerland provides indirectly the Judgments of the ECJ. This could be solved differently, by the court of arbitration only the reasonableness of the compensation measures to be assessed. It would be beneficial for both sides, because the arbitral Tribunal would not interpret EU law, this remains the sole competence of the ECJ. But in such a simplified procedure, the ECJ would have no direct role, and it would be from a Swiss point of view, no “foreign judges” we should accept – which is a legitimate point of criticism of the SVP would be dropped.
extend The Guillotine clause has to go. It can’t be that, as intended, as a result of a unilateral termination of the InstA by the EU, the seven existing bilateral agreements and the Schengen agreement, and all future market access agreements simply would disappear. It is incomprehensible that the Swiss have agreed to the negotiators of such a scheme, which the EU is a tremendous Power, because the people will not be willing to all join in, what our partner wants, we will be punished with the total contract withdrawal. The is a of direct democracy are not compatible.
also, The supplementary Declaration of the Contracting partner, to that effect, three years after the entry into force of a total revision of the existing free trade agreement (FTA) of 1972 is to be made, must be deleted. The FHA has to do per se with an InstA anything. This unnecessary Declaration of intent is only created legal uncertainty, since no one knows whether such a renegotiation to succeed, and what happens if it fails.
It should be noted in the revised InstA clear that the existing protection of Wages in Switzerland are not shaken. This is a prerequisite for the approval of the trade unions and the SP on the framework agreement. At best, some reporting could be shortened deadlines something the Left should be able to live.
The Chapter on the control of state aid of the Swiss cantons should be deleted. These have to do with an institutional framework agreement. It agreement of 1972, is already in free trade, a handle, against unfair state aid for both Treaty partners.
It must be explicitly stated that Switzerland must not take the Union citizens Directive in the EU. The covers are much higher than in the EU, the employment protection is much less. If it is for EU citizens almost immediately is possible to apply in Switzerland unemployed-money, which leads to the collapse of the system. As an independent, third-country, Switzerland may not be required, excesses of EU social policy to support.
These six sites show that this framework agreement has required urgent Revision. It is to be hoped that the Federal Council the present draft of the framework agreement in the version dated may 23. November 2018 not sign and the moral fibre to demand that the new European Commission, a renegotiation of the InstA.
employees of the state Secretariat for economic Affairs, Counsellor at the Swiss Mission to the EC, and later the representative of the suburb (today Economiesuisse) in Brussels. He is the editor of the “Swiss Europe-Breviary”.
note:
This article was first published on 8. In March, the international women’s day. On this occasion, we use – wherever possible – instead of the generic Maskulinums the generic feminine. For example: patients, instead of patients.
This Text is from the current issue. Now all of the articles in the E-Paper of the Sunday newspaper, read: App for iOS App for Android – Web-App
Created: 07.03.2020, 22:53 PM
