They mention direct democracy, and how it would prove difficult to secure voter approval for joining. I am in fact of the opinion that joining the EU would officially kill direct democracy for good for many important topics. You cannot vote on something that Brussels has decided, you can only adopt it and have some local peculiarities in implementation.
We have struggled with that for three decades. This is why we have had votes where the EU got involved and applied pressure: Vote in favor or you’re out of this treaty or that happens etc.
That is dangerous, but somehow we just managed to get the results to continue the relationship for the most part. Joining means we don’t get to vote on any of those issues anymore because once it is decided, it is done. And don’t give me that speech on how Switzerland would be able to work with and influence what is decided in Brussels as a member state. We are tiny nation.
France and Germany have so much weight in this union that our ideas would simply never be heard. And sadly, our ideas seem to differ a lot from theirs in recent years.
I’ve been in Switzerland for almost three years now and this (along with the inter canton dynamics) is the most interesting thing for me in the country. There is one aspect not focused that Swiss people will have to address eventually, be it within the context of EU accession discussions or not: corporate regulation. I know you already struggle and there are bursts of discussion here and there, but the big multinational income dependency is directly correlated with how lax laws can be in where they settle. Accession to the EU can disrupt significantly the continuation of these companies in the country. And this really is a life changing event. I’m not taking a position on whether the leniency given to them is good or bad, not even if their practices are good or bad; this is something for the Swiss people to decide. But I think this should really be on your minds.
Main issue is that Switzerland would no longer be neutral. EU is following the US on pretty much all matters.
At the same time when you know that CH will buy F-35 with important foreign maintenance & parts dependencies, you can also doubt CH’s neutral stance.
Seems like the current status of not being EU, but following most EU regulations for trade is working well for both parties.
eu needs to become more democratic imo and sort out some of its problems first. maybe in 10 years we could join but at the moment there are too many issues
jaja the good old William Tell
Switzerland and Norway being the most successful countries in Europe and at the same time not part of the EU must really be a a thorn in the side to the EU-bureaucrats. Because of this the pressure that the EU puts on Switzerland will just get worse and worse until we get full out economic sanctions if Switzerland doesn’t join.
Because the EU people can’t vote about every important matter.
In Switzerland , we can.
Average European Union fan vs. Average Confederation enjoyer
I’m a German citizen living in Switzerland. Used to live in the US and then moved to the U.K. for professional reasons. Then Brexit happened and moved here to Switzerland 3 years ago because I found a job here.
I’m very pro-EU but I’m against Switzerland joining. Switzerland enjoys direct democracy, a unique feature that makes Switzerland stand out and joining the EU would destroy that, since all the important decisions would then be made in Brussels.
The Swiss system has worked very well for Switzerland and it’s been around far longer than the EU.
Switzerland has renegotiated some treaties recently.
AFAIK, it was difficult and they have simple reconducted a previous agreement. But it was not to EU liking and I gathered it is temporary.
How much does the common market matters to the Swiss ?
P.s. I agree that the EU is very lacking in democracy and it is imposing its own logic to the rest of the continent.
EU is for average countries and the Swiss are better or at least they think this way. Anyway, until the Swiss decide to Join – if ever – EU will splinter in a lot of small countries.
Why should we?
**TLDR: I see no benefit but a lot of disadvantages in joining the EU.**
* EU law- and regulation-making is not really compatible with our direct democracy. If we would join the EU and keep the direct democracy, then we would have a similar situation like we have now.
* Any EU legislation that (as a EU member) we would need to put into Swiss legislation could fall under a public referendum with the threat of Switzerland being sanctioned or expelled by the EU if the referendum passes. So basically a situation similar to what we already have now with those recurring public votes on EU-related topics where the EU (and some left-wing Swiss parties) usually claim that the EU will cancel existing treaties, if the Swiss citizens vote against the new EU regulation.
* Also, if we keep direct democracy, then one could always start an initiative to “leave the EU” (like what happened with Brexit), so once again a similar situation like we have at the moment.
* Abolishing direct democracy would go against the core values of the Swiss Confederation and is not a feasible option. Anyone proposing would be crazy IMHO.
* The advantage of the current situation is that it leaves Switzerland in a better negotiation position with the EU.
* To me it seems the EU will perceive the threat of cancelled treaties as more “real” (meaning the probability of it happening and ease of actually cancelling/leaving) than the – until Brexit just theoretical – threat of a EU country leaving the union. One occasion, where the advantage of our negotiation position could be recently seen was the cancellation of the talks on the “Rahmenabkommen”.
* EU laws and regulations are written in a much more complicated way than Swiss legislation.
* I can usually read a text of Swiss legislation (unless there are a lot of references to or copy-pasting of EU regulations) and understand what rules i should follow. EU legislation is written in a way that is much harder to understand for a layperson.
* Also, EU lawmaking involves (from my understanding) less avenues for an individual citizen to provide direct feedback. In Switzerland i have the right to directly submit my feedback (“Vernehmlassung”) on every piece of national, cantonal and local lawmaking. Lawmaking without consulting citizens can lead to shitty regulations. Example:
* EU regulation on gas cylinders and gas equipment has affected the diving community leading to a situation where practically all divers just ignore certain EU regulations. Some diveshops and divers even have to resort to the use of unregulated (potentially untested and/or unsafe) cylinder filling adapters to circumvent the nonsensical EU regulations.
* In addition, a far-away authority (i usually use the term “Central Committee of the European Union”) trying to centrally regulate things that would better be solved on a national, cantonal or communal level can lead to overregulation, high cost/burden of compliance and other unwanted effects. Example:
* The matching tire size for the factory rims on my American car is not sold in the EU anymore due to mandatory EU testing and marking requirements making it unattractive for the (EU-based!) manufacturer to certify and sell the (EU-made!) tires outside the US market. EU regulations would have forced me to throw away my car or pay (potentially multiple times) for expensive expert reports to be allowed to put new tires without EU certification markings on my car. Luckily, Swiss regulations state that as long as the tires match the Swiss type registration of the car (which they do) it is allowed.
* EU spending policy sometimes is quite ridiculous. While travelling around Europe, i have seen some “financed by the EU” signs on building sites for things that should IMHO not be financed by the public. Some examples:
* EU paid half the cost for the construction of a private apartment complex and diving facility in Malta for “tourism support reasons”.
* EU paid to support building a huge private office building in some “no man’s land” desolated area in the eastern part of Germany. From the state of the “For rent, newly built, partially paid by the EU” sign, the building has stood empty for years.
* Even though terrorists and other criminals almost exclusively use illegally acquired firearms, the EU used the “terrorist threat” narrative to push for overly broad gun legislation. They also used the “we will cancel treaties” threat to force Switzerland to comply. This burdens legal gun owners with overly complicated, unnecessary and sometimes outright nonsensical rules and restrictions, while providing no additional security benefits. The bad guys will just keep using illegal firearms or use other methods (e.g. commerical trucks like in Nice or Berlin) for their attacks.
* Centralized authority is usually bad for privacy and citizens rights. The EU has tried many times in the past to push for regulations that invade privacy and violate citizens rights, often times citing overly hypothetical or constructed terrorism concerns and lately switching to the “somebody think of the children” narrative.
* Just look at the current proposals on mandatory decryption / backdoors or automated scanning of messaging and messaging apps, which – once the infrastructure is in place – can then very easily be extended and abused in a 1984-like manner, something we currently see happening in Russia.
* While data protection is regulated on the EU level, some EU countries (like Ireland) still don’t really enforce them (e.g. with Facebook).
* So what’s the point of all this central EU regulation anyway?
* Awful treatment of refugees by FRONTEX (the centrally managed and financed EU border police), sometimes violating their human rights.
Now, what again were the supposed benefits of this “EU thing” that you keep talking about?
13 comments
They mention direct democracy, and how it would prove difficult to secure voter approval for joining. I am in fact of the opinion that joining the EU would officially kill direct democracy for good for many important topics. You cannot vote on something that Brussels has decided, you can only adopt it and have some local peculiarities in implementation.
We have struggled with that for three decades. This is why we have had votes where the EU got involved and applied pressure: Vote in favor or you’re out of this treaty or that happens etc.
That is dangerous, but somehow we just managed to get the results to continue the relationship for the most part. Joining means we don’t get to vote on any of those issues anymore because once it is decided, it is done. And don’t give me that speech on how Switzerland would be able to work with and influence what is decided in Brussels as a member state. We are tiny nation.
France and Germany have so much weight in this union that our ideas would simply never be heard. And sadly, our ideas seem to differ a lot from theirs in recent years.
I’ve been in Switzerland for almost three years now and this (along with the inter canton dynamics) is the most interesting thing for me in the country. There is one aspect not focused that Swiss people will have to address eventually, be it within the context of EU accession discussions or not: corporate regulation. I know you already struggle and there are bursts of discussion here and there, but the big multinational income dependency is directly correlated with how lax laws can be in where they settle. Accession to the EU can disrupt significantly the continuation of these companies in the country. And this really is a life changing event. I’m not taking a position on whether the leniency given to them is good or bad, not even if their practices are good or bad; this is something for the Swiss people to decide. But I think this should really be on your minds.
Main issue is that Switzerland would no longer be neutral. EU is following the US on pretty much all matters.
At the same time when you know that CH will buy F-35 with important foreign maintenance & parts dependencies, you can also doubt CH’s neutral stance.
Seems like the current status of not being EU, but following most EU regulations for trade is working well for both parties.
eu needs to become more democratic imo and sort out some of its problems first. maybe in 10 years we could join but at the moment there are too many issues
jaja the good old William Tell
Switzerland and Norway being the most successful countries in Europe and at the same time not part of the EU must really be a a thorn in the side to the EU-bureaucrats. Because of this the pressure that the EU puts on Switzerland will just get worse and worse until we get full out economic sanctions if Switzerland doesn’t join.
Because the EU people can’t vote about every important matter.
In Switzerland , we can.
Average European Union fan vs. Average Confederation enjoyer
I’m a German citizen living in Switzerland. Used to live in the US and then moved to the U.K. for professional reasons. Then Brexit happened and moved here to Switzerland 3 years ago because I found a job here.
I’m very pro-EU but I’m against Switzerland joining. Switzerland enjoys direct democracy, a unique feature that makes Switzerland stand out and joining the EU would destroy that, since all the important decisions would then be made in Brussels.
The Swiss system has worked very well for Switzerland and it’s been around far longer than the EU.
Switzerland has renegotiated some treaties recently.
AFAIK, it was difficult and they have simple reconducted a previous agreement. But it was not to EU liking and I gathered it is temporary.
How much does the common market matters to the Swiss ?
P.s. I agree that the EU is very lacking in democracy and it is imposing its own logic to the rest of the continent.
EU is for average countries and the Swiss are better or at least they think this way. Anyway, until the Swiss decide to Join – if ever – EU will splinter in a lot of small countries.
Why should we?
**TLDR: I see no benefit but a lot of disadvantages in joining the EU.**
* EU law- and regulation-making is not really compatible with our direct democracy. If we would join the EU and keep the direct democracy, then we would have a similar situation like we have now.
* Any EU legislation that (as a EU member) we would need to put into Swiss legislation could fall under a public referendum with the threat of Switzerland being sanctioned or expelled by the EU if the referendum passes. So basically a situation similar to what we already have now with those recurring public votes on EU-related topics where the EU (and some left-wing Swiss parties) usually claim that the EU will cancel existing treaties, if the Swiss citizens vote against the new EU regulation.
* Also, if we keep direct democracy, then one could always start an initiative to “leave the EU” (like what happened with Brexit), so once again a similar situation like we have at the moment.
* Abolishing direct democracy would go against the core values of the Swiss Confederation and is not a feasible option. Anyone proposing would be crazy IMHO.
* The advantage of the current situation is that it leaves Switzerland in a better negotiation position with the EU.
* To me it seems the EU will perceive the threat of cancelled treaties as more “real” (meaning the probability of it happening and ease of actually cancelling/leaving) than the – until Brexit just theoretical – threat of a EU country leaving the union. One occasion, where the advantage of our negotiation position could be recently seen was the cancellation of the talks on the “Rahmenabkommen”.
* EU laws and regulations are written in a much more complicated way than Swiss legislation.
* I can usually read a text of Swiss legislation (unless there are a lot of references to or copy-pasting of EU regulations) and understand what rules i should follow. EU legislation is written in a way that is much harder to understand for a layperson.
* Also, EU lawmaking involves (from my understanding) less avenues for an individual citizen to provide direct feedback. In Switzerland i have the right to directly submit my feedback (“Vernehmlassung”) on every piece of national, cantonal and local lawmaking. Lawmaking without consulting citizens can lead to shitty regulations. Example:
* EU regulation on gas cylinders and gas equipment has affected the diving community leading to a situation where practically all divers just ignore certain EU regulations. Some diveshops and divers even have to resort to the use of unregulated (potentially untested and/or unsafe) cylinder filling adapters to circumvent the nonsensical EU regulations.
* In addition, a far-away authority (i usually use the term “Central Committee of the European Union”) trying to centrally regulate things that would better be solved on a national, cantonal or communal level can lead to overregulation, high cost/burden of compliance and other unwanted effects. Example:
* The matching tire size for the factory rims on my American car is not sold in the EU anymore due to mandatory EU testing and marking requirements making it unattractive for the (EU-based!) manufacturer to certify and sell the (EU-made!) tires outside the US market. EU regulations would have forced me to throw away my car or pay (potentially multiple times) for expensive expert reports to be allowed to put new tires without EU certification markings on my car. Luckily, Swiss regulations state that as long as the tires match the Swiss type registration of the car (which they do) it is allowed.
* EU spending policy sometimes is quite ridiculous. While travelling around Europe, i have seen some “financed by the EU” signs on building sites for things that should IMHO not be financed by the public. Some examples:
* EU paid half the cost for the construction of a private apartment complex and diving facility in Malta for “tourism support reasons”.
* EU paid to support building a huge private office building in some “no man’s land” desolated area in the eastern part of Germany. From the state of the “For rent, newly built, partially paid by the EU” sign, the building has stood empty for years.
* Even though terrorists and other criminals almost exclusively use illegally acquired firearms, the EU used the “terrorist threat” narrative to push for overly broad gun legislation. They also used the “we will cancel treaties” threat to force Switzerland to comply. This burdens legal gun owners with overly complicated, unnecessary and sometimes outright nonsensical rules and restrictions, while providing no additional security benefits. The bad guys will just keep using illegal firearms or use other methods (e.g. commerical trucks like in Nice or Berlin) for their attacks.
* Centralized authority is usually bad for privacy and citizens rights. The EU has tried many times in the past to push for regulations that invade privacy and violate citizens rights, often times citing overly hypothetical or constructed terrorism concerns and lately switching to the “somebody think of the children” narrative.
* Just look at the current proposals on mandatory decryption / backdoors or automated scanning of messaging and messaging apps, which – once the infrastructure is in place – can then very easily be extended and abused in a 1984-like manner, something we currently see happening in Russia.
* While data protection is regulated on the EU level, some EU countries (like Ireland) still don’t really enforce them (e.g. with Facebook).
* So what’s the point of all this central EU regulation anyway?
* Awful treatment of refugees by FRONTEX (the centrally managed and financed EU border police), sometimes violating their human rights.
Now, what again were the supposed benefits of this “EU thing” that you keep talking about?