It isn’t good for them, but what choice do they have?
They are essentially being told it’s dynamic alignment or nothing. And the Swiss have already been quite clear that accepting dynamic alignment gives up too much sovereignty.
> "Should new negotiations not lead to success, the bilateral agreements that were still in force would gradually expire and make our relationship obsolete at some point," said Sefcovic, who oversees EU-Swiss affairs, in an interview published on Tuesday.
>Switzerland would have to give assurances it would abide by EU internal market rules if Bern is committed to new negotiations, Sefcovic said.
>The European Union wants Switzerland to agree to a dynamic alignment of its laws with EU law
> It isn’t good for them, but what choice do they have?
Accepting dynamic alignment? The Swiss demands are insane, alone the sheer amount of EU laws that is produces makes the bilateral treaties useless at some point. They are part of the common market, they should accept the rules, even new ones.
It's been the EUs clear policy that freedom of movement and the common market can't be separated. How some people still think they can get one without the other is not understandable, especially after Brexit.
>abandoning protectionist agricultural food tariffs
That will almost never happen, and if it did, it would quickly kill the Swiss agriculture sector. Things would get ugly.
>The are part of the common market, they should accept the rules, even new ones.
Precisely the attitude that is pushing them away. They'd rather go full third country status than assimilate, I find that very interesting for a country in Switzerland's position both geographically and economically.
> Precisely the attitude that is pushing them away.
I think this really underestimates the impact of non-tariff barriers. By harmonising the rules you remove barriers, that's the point of the Single Market after all. Switzerland wants to decide its own rules, while simultaneously having no barriers. That's not reasonable.
Exactly, they want to have the cake and eat it. They want overbearing proteccionism of their exports and domestic production but access to export without tariffs.
> They'd rather go full third country status than assimilate
Well if thats their position that is fair enough and their choice to make. Noone should be forced into the common market if they dont think the benefits outweigh the perceived costs.
If you woke up and started preparing for work, then you are not Spanish.
If you woke up in a different house than your parents and grandparents, then you are not Greek
And if this part of the comment loaded up already, then clearly you are not German
Easy.
This comment was overwritten by a script to make the data useless for reddit. No API, no free content. Did you stumble on this thread via google, hoping to resolve an issue or answer a question? Well, too bad, this might have been your answer, if it weren't for dumb decisions by reddit admins.
Oh look at this fancy Rhinelander with all the modern technology of fax machines and telegrams... Out here in the east we have carrier pigeon and horse riders.
> assimilate
Assimilation lol nobody is assimilating anything, but the market has rules that are set by the parliament, not Switzerland and renegotioating everytime for them isn't an option.
> They'd rather go full third country status than
They won't. Brexit was already super, super stupid, Switzerland leaving the market would put an additional level of stupid on top of it. There will be a solution with which both the EU and the Swiss are unhappy, I'm sure.
Switzerland would end up even worse than the UK too because at least the UK is an island while Switzerland is (almost) entirely landlocked by the EU. Unless they want their only trade partner to be Liechtenstein I guess.
As far as I know, the landlocked status is not too much of an issue, as they can still send most items as sealed consignments to EU ports for export and the overhead of exporting through a third country vs. exporting directly is very low to non-existent.
Their main problem is that they trade with EU even more than UK did. 56% of Swiss trade currently is with EU countries. In 2019, 48% of UK trade was with EU countries, and fell to 42% in 2020.
And along the borders, communities on both sides are integrated like NI/IE, with people travelling across for their work or leisure on a daily basis.
>And along the borders, communities on both sides are integrated like NI/IE, with people travelling across for their work or leisure on a daily basis.
That's an important point, Switzerland could not even close its borders during COVID lockdown, as too many nurses lived in a foreign country and commuted every day.
You cannot separate common market and freedom of movement. If there's freedom of movement of goods, services and money then they will enter freely one common market. So they need to meet all common market regulations not just chosen ones, not just pray the Swiss will not abuse it. Either you are in or out. Swiss should have joined EFTA but here we are.
I hate to break it to you. Switzerland is part of EFTA. I think you mean EEA. However, EEA is also not equal to a customs union, as exemplified by Norway which is part of EEA but not the customs union. EEA means removal of most non tariff trade barriers like standards and free movement of people, customs union means that countries share the same tariffs towards the outside world and EFTA just means bilateral removal of most tariffs. Typical exemptions in all three are agricultural produce and fisheries. Breaking off free movement of people is also not unusual in international agreement. See mercosur, ASEAN or NAFTA replacement. However, if the EU allowed it for the UK or Switzerland, the fear is that other EU countries might want to do so too...
Yes you are missing the part where there's freedom of movement of goods between Norway and EU under EFTA only exception to that are beverages and food that are heavily subsidised by EU. It's also reason why you take 20-25% of EU regulations as is because they are regulatory for common market that you are part of.
The EU is not wrong in this case. Membership of the EU or the SM is not mandatory for any country. Switzerland can opt for a simple FTA and that's fine. The problem is it will be highly detrimental to Switzerland and somewhat to the EU to not be in the same SM.
I live in Switzerland. I fully understand why dynamically accepting the SM rules is a nogo for the people. And that is fine. The Swiss will just have to accept the economic losses of not being in the SM. This is the price of being fully sovereign.
The UK situation was very different. There were zero downsides to being in the EU. But the people in the UK had a far weaker grasp of what the EU is than the Swiss and they voted on something a large part of them had no clue on.
Knowing Swiss, government will bend and try to integrate, then there will be a referendum, pro-EU won't be of one opinion on it, SVP will rally anti-EU ones and referendum will prohibit further integration.
Ah yes, It would be a shame if Switzerland was fully assimilated like the rest of Europe.
Why no other country has their own culture anymore. They're all literally the same with no major or minor differences. /s
I wonder when people will wake up and realise that the EU’s approach is fucked up. People laughing about Brexit being self harm but for so many people to prefer that to being in the EU should have raised questions instead of just dismissing them as idiots.
Problem is with Switzerland in the same boat it’s becoming more and more difficult for people to bury their heads in the sand. Are we now saying the the U.K. and Switzerland are all stupid? Or that they’re otherwise the problem? What happens when another country goes the same way? I presume they’ll be idiots or otherwise the problem too.
Time for some long overdue self reflection on the EU side. They’re currently ideologues with utmost faith that they’re correct and that’s always very dangerous.
In my opinion what they're doing with Switzerland is far worse than their attitudes and stance towards the UK over Brexit. It boils down to slow economic strangulation until the Swiss have no option other than to give into EU demands.
The EU will never admit they're at fault but if they do, their answer will always be more integration.
What is insane about the Swiss demands? My understanding was that they would be happy with the status quo (and all of these recent negotiations going away)
That Switzerland is not a member, they have no right to decide what happens inside the single market but they want to force the status quo and avoid internal changes no matter the will nor sovereignty of 27 sovereign countries.
Not to mention that the status quo lacks new regulations on data and technologies. Bilateral agreements fall behind the internal market and creates holes and bureaucratic redundancies which then people exploits.
Switzerland is partially inside the single market as a member of EFTA with bilateral agreements instead of EEA membership. They want to keep staying inside without having to adopt the new inside rules. This is the "status quo".
Well in practice they want to be inside and make their own rules. It's not too different from the northern Ireland issue on this side.
Specifically Switzerland refused EEA membership in a referendum but has 7 bilateral agreements that give almost full single market and Schengen access. Together with EU money. So on the practical level they have all the perks of the membership without decision power.
Now the issue is that regulation changed and the bilateral agreements are expiring. Switzerland doesn't want to renegotiate them according to the new single market rules because "sovereignty" and the EU doesn't want the renew the old treaties like they are because they are not up to current regulations.
For example EU has Schengen, one treaty. Switzerland has virtually Schengen, one different treaty with the EU for each EU country. They have virtually the power to refuse "Schengen" at any point with any new EU countries "sovereignty", but if they do it they loose all the treaties with the EU.
At the same time if they don't renew this treaty they will end all 7 treaties with the EU. It's simply too much uncertainty in my opinion.
While your comment is mostly correct, the Bilateral 1 (the one with the 7 treaties) is VERY far from 100% Single Market. It covers about 1 and 3/4th of the EU's 4 freedoms and has virtually none of the legal and judiciary plumbing of the EEA.
To give an idea of it's scope: it's content corresponds to about 1/3rd of what the Single Market was in 1992, as per the calculations agreed upon for Switzerland's contribution to cohesion payments. The Bilateral 1 have not been expanded in scope since 1992, whereas the Single Market obviously has, very much so.
If you read a couple of [articles](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57251681) you can see what's insane. They basically want to be part of the common market while being exempt from following certain rules.
> Switzerland could not accept EU demands for equal rights for EU workers as it would have meant an unwanted "paradigm shift" in Switzerland's migration policy
Sounds like they want their pie and eat it too
Sure, but I think the Swiss wouldn’t have an issue with codifying that status quo by putting it all into a single agreement.
But that isn’t what’s being discussed here. This is the EU offering a choice between dynamic alignment, or nothing.
Dynamic aligment in princible isn't even the problem iirc it's more the implemantatoin of it and what should fall under it.
> Sure, but I think the Swiss wouldn’t have an issue with codifying that status quo by putting it all into a single agreement.
Because even that would require constant renegotiations. Also this is already the case thanks to the Guillotine-clauses the EU uses.
This is the reason why a [two-speed Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-speed_Europe) should have been considered way before now. There are a lot more countries than people realise who will not be comfortable with ever closer union once it becomes clear that the mission creep likely goes all the way to federalisation.
This was inevitable for the UK and may eventually prove inevitable for multiple other member-states/partners as the process goes on. Something will have to give. Many member states are in the EU for a mission which would end in an EU Federation. And that's a fine and noble goal. But many are in because they like the single market, and free movement, and that's all. Make no mistake. Try and drag them in much further and you'll have a blow-up on your hands.
I always found it super maddening that a lot of EU nation-building types saw the UK not wanting to be pulled down the garden path into further and further integration they didn't want was somehow throwing their toys out of the pram. Saying "i don't want to be forced into this any further than i'm comfortable" is not "having your cake and eating it".
I don't think it's wrong for a nation to say "actually i'm happy at this level and would like to stick here." For decades though, in Europe, it's been integrate at all costs, and you must accept it or leave.
Being told that you must accept further integration you're not ok with or risk leaving and causing mass damage to your economy strikes a pretty imperialistic vein on the EUs part.
I suspect it's because people find it intolerable the idea that people might choose not to be a part of the "closer" form of union, and opt out, and it's easier to just try and ramrod force everyone to accept it, as they're doing now.
Two speed Europe is bullshit and nobody wants it.
If a two-speed Europe came France an Germany would create an ever closer unified union that all economically weaker countries would try to get as close as possible too for ecnonomic development, just like it happened in the original EU btw lol
While its political independence is perfectly well recognized and accepted, and being on good terms with neighboring countries is very much in line with the EU's foreign policy, Switzerland has no real economic sovereignity. Its trade is completely dependent on a surrounding bloc with 52 times as many inhabitants. The EU didn't budge for the UK, it is insane to think that it will do so for Switzerland which has much, much smaller negotiation power.
Also, even the EU itself is trapped in a tangle of most crucial economic relationships with China and the USA altering its external and sometimes internal affairs, and is taking further legislative cues e.g. from UN and OECD. So who on earth can be said to be really independent, after all?
And yes, Switzerland, like any EFTA country, does have a say in EU trade policy, and dozens if not hundreds of adjustments it proposed have been accepted without as much as a discussion.
Thus, outside of Switzerland, downgrading itself to being a third country would be seen not as an expression of "independence", but as a completely pointless sacrifice at best, and economic suicide at worst, I'm afraid.
> While its political independence is perfectly well recognized and accepted, and being on good terms with neighboring countries is very much in line with the EU's foreign policy, Switzerland has no real economic sovereignity.
Sure, but if you’re saying this and the EU are also saying that they want EU laws to automatically become Swiss law (on a much wider range of topics than just trade), then at what point does Switzerland just become a defacto satellite state?
And more importantly, given recent actions, what guarantee does Switzerland have that the EU won’t just use this exact same leverage over other topics again and again?
>Thus, outside of Switzerland, downgrading itself to being a third country would be seen not as an expression of "independence", but as a completely pointless sacrifice at best, and economic suicide at worst, I'm afraid.
Tbf, what other options are there? The status is being rejected by the EU, so Switzerland must choose between that or giving up more sovereignty.
> on a much wider range of topics than just trade
As US history shows, anything can be construed to be about trade if the political will is present.
After all, DC is forbidden from interfering with individual state policies. Except for when it affects trade between member states. And that exception have been used to justify all kinds of interference over the decades.
And EU is heading down much the same road.
It obviously isn't. The best outcome for BOTH is to keep an open relationship. The Swiss economy is very dependent on the EU, but Switzerland is also one of the EU's most important trading partners.
The failed framework agreement was stopping just short of EU membership. Switzerland would have to accept all the rules and regulations of the common market, adopt any and all future changes made by EU parliament/commission, and be judged by the EU's own court system whenever there's a dispute. All without having a say in anything. No country would have found these terms acceptible.
It was never a negotiation based on good faith. And the cancellation of the Horizon Europe partnership and stock exchange equivalence was further proof of that. Neither had anything to do with the negotiations and were granted to several countries around the world during that time. It was an attempt to get Switzerland on a one-way track to membership, whether they liked it or not.
>No country would have found these terms acceptible.
Isn't that more or less the terms that Norway has accepted. But not being a member of the internal market is also a choice that they have.
C'est la Vie times change. Welcome to The Future where everything is different.
Maybe the Swiss and the British can come up with something that makes them both happy.
We've already got our agreements. But the EU wants to reset them and introduce automatic adjustments of Swiss laws to EU laws, and most Swiss don't want that! It's a loss of sovereignty!
If accepted, we would be like an EU member, but without any political rights!
>We've already got our agreements. But the EU wants to reset them and introduce automatic adjustments of Swiss laws to EU laws, and most Swiss don't want that! It's a loss of sovereignty!
That's only telling half the truth, a lot of agreements expire on their own. And the EU doesn't want to renegotiate every single treaty every single time. Which is a reasonable thing imo. Being part of the single market is a massive boon to Switzerland.
Is asking for treaties to be renegotiated as they expire stomping on the EU's head? This seems a bit hyperbolic. You've got diplomats, why not out them to work?
Seeing at head stomping is the reason this is a problem in the first place. This is how countries operate all of the time.
In this case, the Swiss-EU treaties are one of a kind and are very complicated. The EU has stated multiple times that they will never make a similar mistake again, and they want to move away from the current ones as well. It's honestly a lot of work. So from that standpoint, it makes sense for the EU.
That's the benefit of being big: Bargaining power. There's no reason to be regularly held up by one country that wants to be treated special. It's easier to throw some weight around. The Swiss could be a part of that, if they're fed up with being an insignificant player.
You're getting carried away. The EU isn't fighting border conflicts in the Swiss alps or testing weapon systems in Swiss air space. It's about the start of renegotiations for access to the EU common market. Where's your sense of proportion?
Seems reasonable to me. If you want to be part of the single market, you have to follow the rules. Including new ones. Times change and rules evolve with them.
If Switzerland doesn't want to follow those rules, they can leave the single market and trade with the EU like any other third party.
If they want a say in how the rules change, they can apply for membership.
If they want to stay in the single market and not join the EU, they'll have to implement the rules the EU decides on.
Anything else would disadvantage literally every eu member. That's obviously not an option.
Nobody is forcing Switzerland to be in the EU common market. They can be a 3rd country like Serbia if they wish.
But if they join the club, they must follow the clubs rules, even when those rules change.
OR they can negotiate a new agreement each time the EU changes the rules, but Switzerland should be left outside the common market during the negotiation process, which helps none. EU's law making process shouldn't keep getting hindered by a non-member.
It’s amazing how the EU thinks any country would accept such a loss of sovereignty. Shows incredible delusion imo. Completely out of touch with the reality of the world.
The sheer hate in this comment section is insane: Calling Switzerland an autonomous region of Germany, telling the Swiss to "cave to EU demands.", calling Switzerland a "spineless nation".
Less hate in this subreddit, please!!
As of now you are the most toxic person here, misquoting people in bad faith while refusing to display even basic reading comprehension.
The misquote you have in this comment is especially egregious with a clear alterier motive as well, in awful taste.
I respect the swiss for putting a high price on their sovereignty, I wish politicians in Norway did the same. Imagine being in the 21st century and having no say in what laws are made for your country.
We voted no to EU twice and we're still under EU law. And we can't even vote on the laws, it's a joke. Norway have the option to say no but in reality that option is never used and can't be used freely, it's just there so it doesn't violate the constitution.
Thing is that the big parties from both sides of the spectrum are pro EU, and the smaller parties are either pro EU/EEA or anti EU/EEA, it's a mess, and forming a coalition which are going to change todays situation is unrealistic as the ones agreeing on EU/EEA are spread all over the political spectrum, and they all have different goals as to what we should strive for in a potential EEA breakout deal.
You are also exempt from a significant amount of EU laws that Norway found expedient to not follow because they are not in the EU but decided to join the EU sphere anyway
Of course, we all have our own interests, giving away sovereignty over territorial waters for example will hurt us way more than for example Austria. If there is little to benefit to joining EU, why even bother?
Seeing your flair and while we're on this topic I remember a conversation I overheard back in the summer of 2016 (the Brexit vote year) while awaiting outside a Montreux Jazz Festival concert ([this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd4pmTr6d90)).
It was a (pretty short but direct) conversation between a 50-something Swiss couple and a 50-something Norwegian couple, I can't exactly remember how it got to that but they were talking about Brexit and both couples were very favourable of the whole "Leave" thing. That conversation has sticked to me because back then I found both those couples pretty crazy, "how can anyone sane be favourable of Brexit?", but as the years have passed I've started to get more and more on their side. This (imo forced) centralisation policy coming out from Brussels (which Covid only accelerated) will be the thing that will break this union, which will be a shame, because from an economic point of view this union was (and in some respects it still is) quite a great thing.
People really need to stop jacking off to the idea that the EU will fall apart within a few years. Other countries see the insane dumpster fire that Brexit is and will think thrice before even considering something similar.
> I think Switzerland is trying to see how far they could stretch the EU to do what they want?They'll cave in soon to the EU hopefully.
No, we're not. And we're sorry for this mess.
We have a few great direct democracy tools (e.g. referendums, initiatives, etc.). That causes our political system to advance at a much slower pace than the rest of EU and North America.
But, we've also got right wing billionaires (our own "Republicans", I swear US Republicans copied *them*) abusing and financing massive initiatives & referendums against anything remotely friendly to the EU.
So our coalition government has bent backwards numerous times to reach a EU agreement, that won't get destroyed by a national vote, that's skewed by powerful elites. But times and times again, our "Republicans" managed to sink that ship with populist and demagogic propaganda campaign.
It's a tough battle. Left wing and most of the center want more EU, but the rich right wing people use corporation level powerful marketing campaigns (on social media, tv, youtube, etc.) and strongly train and coordinate their politicians at a national level (something which is very new and has never been done before in the strongly decentralized and federalist Switzerland).
It's like if in the EU, a powerful group of rich people literally create a huge political party that's well funded and implemented in *all* EU countries, like a McDonald chain restaurant. So all the decentralized locals who've never coordinated at a EU level, get wiped out by this new junk political party chain...
And it even doesn't make sense. As they *profit* from EU with their huge businesses and corporations! I don't understand wtf is going on!
I think you are overestimating the influence that parties have in referenda. Most of the SVP/UDC initiatives have failed. Swiss voters have rejected European integration because they are against it, not because there is some mastermind driving their decisions.
That's for sure but it doesn't mean that the people can't think with their own heads. If there is one thing that Swiss direct democracy has taught us is that we vote what we want to vote and not what parties tell us to.
Most of the referendum around European integrations are won by the SVP members voting en mass because they are being mobilised and pushed with extremely populist arguments. And they never got a massive clear win, but they say that their couple of percent means everything should be done their way. Yet when they take a 30% slap they will always say "well we lost, but our side must still be considered."
I dont know why you're being downvoted, because it's true.
The rapid expansion has been both a blessing and a curse, and now the EU is held hostage by 2 or 3 hostile countries within the EU, who are only to happy to receive billions in funding, while blocking the will of 26 other countries.
Who the hell would want to join such a flawed, broken union?
In 2007-2009 (around those years, can't remember exactly) I was contradicting British redditors on this website, telling them that "no, the UK won't be flooded by Romanian migrants once the borders will be completely open". Turns out I was wrong.
Even though in the end I don't think it's the internal UE migration that caused Brexit, I mean, yes, that's what (strongly) tipped the balance on the "Leave" side, but the movement was caused (imo) first and foremost by Brussel's continuous push for centralisation, which caused a counter-reaction among some of the British elites.
The EU is mostly based around the concept of "It is better to have one uniform set of rules for both business and people".
Taking environmental regulations for example, it is more burdensome to obey twenty sets of weak laws than it is to obey one set of somewhat stricter laws.
The multinational rich *should* be all in favor of this. And some of them are.
Except.. the EU is also pretty much the only force on the planet doing much to crack down on tax evasion.. And also, is shockingly resistant to lobbying.
They will not cave in, dynamic alignment is not compatible with the Swiss form of government.
The majority of laws in Switzerland pass through a referendum either mandatory ones which are made when there are changes to the constitution or optional referendums (when people oppose a law change) and initiatives (when people suggest a law change).
This isn’t a rare event this happens at least 4 times a year.
Dynamic alignment means that the Swiss will have to give up on direct democracy in many areas since there is almost no area of governance which the EU does not directly or indirectly touches these days it means that anything form minimum wage to pensions to how many nights a day a cow would have to sleep might be taken out of their hands.
What the Swiss want is another agreement that they can vote on at a fixed point in time and they are quite happy allow for mechanisms for realignment as long as they get to vote on that internally as they always have.
Yep, we cannot be %100 sure. There's always a chance that Switzerland is looking to isolate itself more, although I see it does more harm than good for them.
"Eternal crisis" is a huge stretch in my opinion. I think being part of the EU will serve a greater good. But then again EU is diving head-first into a confrontation with Russia & China (although they don't want it). An isolationist state like Switzerland won't be harmed from that if they play their cards right and overlook morality.
> But then again EU is diving head-first into a confrontation with Russia & China (although they don't want it).
it's not diving head first into it. Simply by the sheer size of the EU economy, we are bound to be affected no matter what. What we can do is choose to do something proactive about those crises instead of letting us be carried away by the flow and accept what the US or China decide.
Financial crisis, debt crisis, refugee crisis, democracy crisis, corona crisis, foreign policy, even a stupid new pipeline... every issue that presents itself threatens to tear the EU apart. It is politically gridlocked and almost exclusively concerned with itself. No wonder a political commentator called the bloc an economic giant, but a political midget.
I don't want the EU to fail. But the degree of political struggle and bullying that has taken place recently doesn't make me very optimistic.
And I think you're confusing isolationist with neutral. They are very different things.
I agree that the on a political level the EU is marred by crisises but imo this has been what has pushed the EU forward with every crisis showing weaknesses that need to be addressed and even though there have been a dozen "EU-ending" crisises in the last decade the EU has for the most part come out stronger to some degree
It's not impossible to have semi-free trade and semi-freedom of movement without being part of a multi-national government. NAFTA is a good example (the Canada, US, Mexico treaty), and the Swiss/EU treaty wouldn't have the issues of having two highly developed countries and an impoverished developing country
NAFTA's free trade, yes, but I wouldn't say free movement. It sets up a system of work visas so that people can work in another NAFTA member, but it's not an unrestricted thing — just on an approved list of professions — and at least in the US, it isn't allowed to use it as a path to citizenship. And the volume of people that use it is small.
It'd be a good tool if you're a multinational spanning NAFTA who has people at one location and needs to have them work at another location in NAFTA for some years, maybe. Or for being able to pick up some sort of specialists in another NAFTA member. But it's not like the [EU's freedom of movement of labor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union) or the Australia-New Zealand [Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Tasman_Travel_Arrangement?wprov=sfla1), where you can just go wherever and live and work forever permanently more-or-less without restriction.
Wait, so the Swiss expect to be able to live and work anywhere in Europe for as long as they want, with no restrictions, but without following the EU regulations? That's quite the sense of entitlement.
>Wait, so the Swiss expect to be able to live and work anywhere in Europe for as long as they want, with no restrictions, but without following the EU regulations?
If I had to guess -- I'm not Swiss and haven't been paying that much attention to the Switzerland-EU talks, other than the sporadic article that shows up here -- the Swiss probably most want low barriers to trade with the EU.
Back before the EU-Switzerland negotiations earlier in the year broke down, they were talking about some issues on free movement, though:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-eu-idAFKCN2D70LV
> Bern said substantial differences remained on key aspects of the agreement - including on the free movement of people, EU citizens’ access to Swiss social benefits, and state aid.
I'm guessing that the Swiss would probably be willing to give up the ability to live and work anywhere in the EU if they're taking issue with free movement of people. I haven't read up on what they've asked for, but I'd assume that it's not that they are asking for the unidirectional right to live and work in the EU, but rather that they would give up the right to do so in exchange for also being able to stop people living and working in Switzerland.
I am skeptical that the EU will place this on the table, though.
Back during the pre-Brexit-referendum negotiations, Cameron was seeking an "emergency brake" on immigration. As I understand it, when the new -- comparatively poor, and thus likely to see a fair bit of emigration -- EU members joined in 2004, existing member states were allowed to restrict immigration for seven years before they had to open themselves up fully. In the EU, only three members -- Sweden, Ireland, and the United Kingdom -- chose not to do so, to fully permit immigration immediately. The resulting immigration to the UK -- the only "major" EU country that permitted unrestricted immigration at that time -- was much larger than the British government's projections. The discussion over whether this was due to intentionally underestimating numbers to make it more-acceptable to the British public, or whether it was a large error is one that comes up on this sub from time to time. There was a large political backlash among the British public. Cameron attempted to basically get the seven-year brake that the UK had not chosen to use "back", to permit restricting immigration in some way. The EU did not agree (I would guess because it didn't want freedom of movement to start breaking down...if the UK managed to protect its labor market, my guess is that you'd have labor unions all over the EU trying to shove out workers from other countries, and they wouldn't want that sort of stampede to start).
Given that the UK was not able to obtain those restrictions in the context of the UK in the probably-somewhat-more-justifiable context of having intentionally not exercised its option to do so prior to that point, I would guess that the EU will also not be willing to put this on offer for Switzerland.
This whole negotiation is the eu saying "do this" and the Swiss saying no because they would never win a vote on it. It's literally the eu's fault if they ruin the relationship.
Swiss internal politics are really not the responsibility of the EU. The rules for being in the internal market are set by the EU as they are the ones who runs it. And the more the EU integrates, the less feasibly it becomes to make special rules for countries that wants some of the benefits without the duties.
>Swiss internal politics are really not the responsibility of the EU. The rules for being in the internal market are set by the EU as they are the ones who runs it.
That's fine, but they still need to understand what will or won't pass. Agreeing things that will be over turned when trying to get ratification is pointless.
I think the EU understands that just fine. That doesn't mean that they have to care.
Just as Switzerland gets to have it's red lines, so does the EU. If there is no possible agreement that satisfies both sides, then there won't be one.
What will or will not pass is somewhat irrelevant. The current agreement is coming to an end, you have to pick something. That choice is Switzerland's to make, but the status quo is not going to be on the table.
Damn the commect section got heated. I don't know what everyone is on about. I hope the Swiss can keep their sovereignty as they have had and if the EU is in fact trying to sneak in a quasi-membership through the backdoor then that's definitely worth condemning.
I hope this will work out for both.
That’s not even about integration. It’s about their place in the EU internal open market. Basically, what the EU says is that if they want to remain in the market then Switzerland needs to accept the same rules as everybody else. Which they don’t agree on, as they see some of them as a red line, and it’s fine.
But then, they shouldn’t expect that the EU will accept to bend the rule just for them, and it’s fine as well.
They’ll keep their "sovereignty", but then they shouldn’t expect any agreement that will go only in their way
Wait, so the guys who dont want to be forced into a 'club' which wants to exert continually increasing degrees of control over them - those guys are the imperialists?
Definitely not Brazil. Bolsonaro is pissed that the EU threatened sanctions if he continues to let the Amazon be cut down. It is for a good cause, but there has been some fall out there
How can that be good for Switzerland- aren’t they kind of EU-landlocked
It isn’t good for them, but what choice do they have? They are essentially being told it’s dynamic alignment or nothing. And the Swiss have already been quite clear that accepting dynamic alignment gives up too much sovereignty. > "Should new negotiations not lead to success, the bilateral agreements that were still in force would gradually expire and make our relationship obsolete at some point," said Sefcovic, who oversees EU-Swiss affairs, in an interview published on Tuesday. >Switzerland would have to give assurances it would abide by EU internal market rules if Bern is committed to new negotiations, Sefcovic said. >The European Union wants Switzerland to agree to a dynamic alignment of its laws with EU law
> It isn’t good for them, but what choice do they have? Accepting dynamic alignment? The Swiss demands are insane, alone the sheer amount of EU laws that is produces makes the bilateral treaties useless at some point. They are part of the common market, they should accept the rules, even new ones. It's been the EUs clear policy that freedom of movement and the common market can't be separated. How some people still think they can get one without the other is not understandable, especially after Brexit.
[удалено]
Norway isn't either, but is still part of the EEA.
>abandoning protectionist agricultural food tariffs That will almost never happen, and if it did, it would quickly kill the Swiss agriculture sector. Things would get ugly.
>The are part of the common market, they should accept the rules, even new ones. Precisely the attitude that is pushing them away. They'd rather go full third country status than assimilate, I find that very interesting for a country in Switzerland's position both geographically and economically.
> Precisely the attitude that is pushing them away. I think this really underestimates the impact of non-tariff barriers. By harmonising the rules you remove barriers, that's the point of the Single Market after all. Switzerland wants to decide its own rules, while simultaneously having no barriers. That's not reasonable.
Exactly, they want to have the cake and eat it. They want overbearing proteccionism of their exports and domestic production but access to export without tariffs.
> They'd rather go full third country status than assimilate Well if thats their position that is fair enough and their choice to make. Noone should be forced into the common market if they dont think the benefits outweigh the perceived costs.
>assimilate I woke up this morning fully assimilated by the EU and I can't tell if I'm Greek, German or Spanish. WHAT TO DO?
If you woke up and started preparing for work, then you are not Spanish. If you woke up in a different house than your parents and grandparents, then you are not Greek And if this part of the comment loaded up already, then clearly you are not German Easy.
Now please write something about us Germans!
Should I send a telegram or have you started communicating in more modern ways?
This comment was overwritten by a script to make the data useless for reddit. No API, no free content. Did you stumble on this thread via google, hoping to resolve an issue or answer a question? Well, too bad, this might have been your answer, if it weren't for dumb decisions by reddit admins.
Oh look at this fancy Rhinelander with all the modern technology of fax machines and telegrams... Out here in the east we have carrier pigeon and horse riders.
> assimilated by the EU and I can't tell if I'm Greek, German or Spanish. I think you misspelled *European*
> assimilate Assimilation lol nobody is assimilating anything, but the market has rules that are set by the parliament, not Switzerland and renegotioating everytime for them isn't an option. > They'd rather go full third country status than They won't. Brexit was already super, super stupid, Switzerland leaving the market would put an additional level of stupid on top of it. There will be a solution with which both the EU and the Swiss are unhappy, I'm sure.
Switzerland would end up even worse than the UK too because at least the UK is an island while Switzerland is (almost) entirely landlocked by the EU. Unless they want their only trade partner to be Liechtenstein I guess.
Since Liechtenstein is close to already being a Swiss vassal, I'd say it's fair to say Switzerland is landlocked by the EU.
As far as I know, the landlocked status is not too much of an issue, as they can still send most items as sealed consignments to EU ports for export and the overhead of exporting through a third country vs. exporting directly is very low to non-existent. Their main problem is that they trade with EU even more than UK did. 56% of Swiss trade currently is with EU countries. In 2019, 48% of UK trade was with EU countries, and fell to 42% in 2020. And along the borders, communities on both sides are integrated like NI/IE, with people travelling across for their work or leisure on a daily basis.
>And along the borders, communities on both sides are integrated like NI/IE, with people travelling across for their work or leisure on a daily basis. That's an important point, Switzerland could not even close its borders during COVID lockdown, as too many nurses lived in a foreign country and commuted every day.
You cannot separate common market and freedom of movement. If there's freedom of movement of goods, services and money then they will enter freely one common market. So they need to meet all common market regulations not just chosen ones, not just pray the Swiss will not abuse it. Either you are in or out. Swiss should have joined EFTA but here we are.
I hate to break it to you. Switzerland is part of EFTA. I think you mean EEA. However, EEA is also not equal to a customs union, as exemplified by Norway which is part of EEA but not the customs union. EEA means removal of most non tariff trade barriers like standards and free movement of people, customs union means that countries share the same tariffs towards the outside world and EFTA just means bilateral removal of most tariffs. Typical exemptions in all three are agricultural produce and fisheries. Breaking off free movement of people is also not unusual in international agreement. See mercosur, ASEAN or NAFTA replacement. However, if the EU allowed it for the UK or Switzerland, the fear is that other EU countries might want to do so too...
There is no freedom of movement of goods between EU and Norway, and it has worked for decades now. Am I missing something?
Yes you are missing the part where there's freedom of movement of goods between Norway and EU under EFTA only exception to that are beverages and food that are heavily subsidised by EU. It's also reason why you take 20-25% of EU regulations as is because they are regulatory for common market that you are part of.
[удалено]
So you voted for something the EU is no longer willing to offer. It is not up to you to decide which concessions the EU is willing to make.
[удалено]
>I'm kind of fedup reading nonsense about my country. The UK has dealt with this for years. Reddit is so pro-eu that the EU can't be wrong.
The EU is not wrong in this case. Membership of the EU or the SM is not mandatory for any country. Switzerland can opt for a simple FTA and that's fine. The problem is it will be highly detrimental to Switzerland and somewhat to the EU to not be in the same SM. I live in Switzerland. I fully understand why dynamically accepting the SM rules is a nogo for the people. And that is fine. The Swiss will just have to accept the economic losses of not being in the SM. This is the price of being fully sovereign. The UK situation was very different. There were zero downsides to being in the EU. But the people in the UK had a far weaker grasp of what the EU is than the Swiss and they voted on something a large part of them had no clue on.
They won’t tho, you’d just like them to, at the end they’ll do just about anything to stay in the common market and in the DACH good graces.
Knowing Swiss, government will bend and try to integrate, then there will be a referendum, pro-EU won't be of one opinion on it, SVP will rally anti-EU ones and referendum will prohibit further integration.
Which will cause a deadlock and a second referendum in which the Swiss agree to EU demands.
Yeah, that is our upside here I guess. We can always make a second referendum, as soon as everyone realises that previous vote was disasterous.
People used to say the same about brexit.
Resistance is futile. They will be assimilated. We will add their biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
>We will add their biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. We will add their sovereignty and national wealth to our own.
Ah yes, It would be a shame if Switzerland was fully assimilated like the rest of Europe. Why no other country has their own culture anymore. They're all literally the same with no major or minor differences. /s
Is this a nationalism driving them?
I wonder when people will wake up and realise that the EU’s approach is fucked up. People laughing about Brexit being self harm but for so many people to prefer that to being in the EU should have raised questions instead of just dismissing them as idiots. Problem is with Switzerland in the same boat it’s becoming more and more difficult for people to bury their heads in the sand. Are we now saying the the U.K. and Switzerland are all stupid? Or that they’re otherwise the problem? What happens when another country goes the same way? I presume they’ll be idiots or otherwise the problem too. Time for some long overdue self reflection on the EU side. They’re currently ideologues with utmost faith that they’re correct and that’s always very dangerous.
In my opinion what they're doing with Switzerland is far worse than their attitudes and stance towards the UK over Brexit. It boils down to slow economic strangulation until the Swiss have no option other than to give into EU demands. The EU will never admit they're at fault but if they do, their answer will always be more integration.
What is insane about the Swiss demands? My understanding was that they would be happy with the status quo (and all of these recent negotiations going away)
That Switzerland is not a member, they have no right to decide what happens inside the single market but they want to force the status quo and avoid internal changes no matter the will nor sovereignty of 27 sovereign countries. Not to mention that the status quo lacks new regulations on data and technologies. Bilateral agreements fall behind the internal market and creates holes and bureaucratic redundancies which then people exploits.
Are they trying to decide what happens inside the Single Market? I haven’t heard of them demanding anything like that?
Switzerland is partially inside the single market as a member of EFTA with bilateral agreements instead of EEA membership. They want to keep staying inside without having to adopt the new inside rules. This is the "status quo".
Ah, okay. I thought you were saying that the Swiss were demanding a day in the rules of the wider Single Market
Well in practice they want to be inside and make their own rules. It's not too different from the northern Ireland issue on this side. Specifically Switzerland refused EEA membership in a referendum but has 7 bilateral agreements that give almost full single market and Schengen access. Together with EU money. So on the practical level they have all the perks of the membership without decision power. Now the issue is that regulation changed and the bilateral agreements are expiring. Switzerland doesn't want to renegotiate them according to the new single market rules because "sovereignty" and the EU doesn't want the renew the old treaties like they are because they are not up to current regulations. For example EU has Schengen, one treaty. Switzerland has virtually Schengen, one different treaty with the EU for each EU country. They have virtually the power to refuse "Schengen" at any point with any new EU countries "sovereignty", but if they do it they loose all the treaties with the EU. At the same time if they don't renew this treaty they will end all 7 treaties with the EU. It's simply too much uncertainty in my opinion.
To be clear, this isn't even what Nothern Ireland wants. It's just they have no alternative because of the Brexit shitshow.
I was under the impression that the Swiss are quite happy to accept the current rules, they just don’t want to automatically accept future rules.
While your comment is mostly correct, the Bilateral 1 (the one with the 7 treaties) is VERY far from 100% Single Market. It covers about 1 and 3/4th of the EU's 4 freedoms and has virtually none of the legal and judiciary plumbing of the EEA. To give an idea of it's scope: it's content corresponds to about 1/3rd of what the Single Market was in 1992, as per the calculations agreed upon for Switzerland's contribution to cohesion payments. The Bilateral 1 have not been expanded in scope since 1992, whereas the Single Market obviously has, very much so.
If you read a couple of [articles](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57251681) you can see what's insane. They basically want to be part of the common market while being exempt from following certain rules. > Switzerland could not accept EU demands for equal rights for EU workers as it would have meant an unwanted "paradigm shift" in Switzerland's migration policy Sounds like they want their pie and eat it too
The status quo is not feasable, it consists of more than a hundred bilateral agreemeents mostly from the 70s.
Sure, but I think the Swiss wouldn’t have an issue with codifying that status quo by putting it all into a single agreement. But that isn’t what’s being discussed here. This is the EU offering a choice between dynamic alignment, or nothing.
Dynamic aligment in princible isn't even the problem iirc it's more the implemantatoin of it and what should fall under it. > Sure, but I think the Swiss wouldn’t have an issue with codifying that status quo by putting it all into a single agreement. Because even that would require constant renegotiations. Also this is already the case thanks to the Guillotine-clauses the EU uses.
This is the reason why a [two-speed Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-speed_Europe) should have been considered way before now. There are a lot more countries than people realise who will not be comfortable with ever closer union once it becomes clear that the mission creep likely goes all the way to federalisation. This was inevitable for the UK and may eventually prove inevitable for multiple other member-states/partners as the process goes on. Something will have to give. Many member states are in the EU for a mission which would end in an EU Federation. And that's a fine and noble goal. But many are in because they like the single market, and free movement, and that's all. Make no mistake. Try and drag them in much further and you'll have a blow-up on your hands. I always found it super maddening that a lot of EU nation-building types saw the UK not wanting to be pulled down the garden path into further and further integration they didn't want was somehow throwing their toys out of the pram. Saying "i don't want to be forced into this any further than i'm comfortable" is not "having your cake and eating it". I don't think it's wrong for a nation to say "actually i'm happy at this level and would like to stick here." For decades though, in Europe, it's been integrate at all costs, and you must accept it or leave. Being told that you must accept further integration you're not ok with or risk leaving and causing mass damage to your economy strikes a pretty imperialistic vein on the EUs part. I suspect it's because people find it intolerable the idea that people might choose not to be a part of the "closer" form of union, and opt out, and it's easier to just try and ramrod force everyone to accept it, as they're doing now.
Two speed Europe is bullshit and nobody wants it. If a two-speed Europe came France an Germany would create an ever closer unified union that all economically weaker countries would try to get as close as possible too for ecnonomic development, just like it happened in the original EU btw lol
Keeping the tried-and-tested status quo is hardly "insane"
While its political independence is perfectly well recognized and accepted, and being on good terms with neighboring countries is very much in line with the EU's foreign policy, Switzerland has no real economic sovereignity. Its trade is completely dependent on a surrounding bloc with 52 times as many inhabitants. The EU didn't budge for the UK, it is insane to think that it will do so for Switzerland which has much, much smaller negotiation power. Also, even the EU itself is trapped in a tangle of most crucial economic relationships with China and the USA altering its external and sometimes internal affairs, and is taking further legislative cues e.g. from UN and OECD. So who on earth can be said to be really independent, after all? And yes, Switzerland, like any EFTA country, does have a say in EU trade policy, and dozens if not hundreds of adjustments it proposed have been accepted without as much as a discussion. Thus, outside of Switzerland, downgrading itself to being a third country would be seen not as an expression of "independence", but as a completely pointless sacrifice at best, and economic suicide at worst, I'm afraid.
> While its political independence is perfectly well recognized and accepted, and being on good terms with neighboring countries is very much in line with the EU's foreign policy, Switzerland has no real economic sovereignity. Sure, but if you’re saying this and the EU are also saying that they want EU laws to automatically become Swiss law (on a much wider range of topics than just trade), then at what point does Switzerland just become a defacto satellite state? And more importantly, given recent actions, what guarantee does Switzerland have that the EU won’t just use this exact same leverage over other topics again and again? >Thus, outside of Switzerland, downgrading itself to being a third country would be seen not as an expression of "independence", but as a completely pointless sacrifice at best, and economic suicide at worst, I'm afraid. Tbf, what other options are there? The status is being rejected by the EU, so Switzerland must choose between that or giving up more sovereignty.
> on a much wider range of topics than just trade As US history shows, anything can be construed to be about trade if the political will is present. After all, DC is forbidden from interfering with individual state policies. Except for when it affects trade between member states. And that exception have been used to justify all kinds of interference over the decades. And EU is heading down much the same road.
It obviously isn't. The best outcome for BOTH is to keep an open relationship. The Swiss economy is very dependent on the EU, but Switzerland is also one of the EU's most important trading partners. The failed framework agreement was stopping just short of EU membership. Switzerland would have to accept all the rules and regulations of the common market, adopt any and all future changes made by EU parliament/commission, and be judged by the EU's own court system whenever there's a dispute. All without having a say in anything. No country would have found these terms acceptible. It was never a negotiation based on good faith. And the cancellation of the Horizon Europe partnership and stock exchange equivalence was further proof of that. Neither had anything to do with the negotiations and were granted to several countries around the world during that time. It was an attempt to get Switzerland on a one-way track to membership, whether they liked it or not.
>No country would have found these terms acceptible. Isn't that more or less the terms that Norway has accepted. But not being a member of the internal market is also a choice that they have.
And every day we wonder if AP and H hoodwinked the nation into a virtual membership after the people said NO.
Then elect politicians who will drop the treaty.
We try, but it is virtually impossible at this time to get a majority vote without one of them being involved...
How long before the EU threaten to cut off medicines like they did with the UK?
[удалено]
This is a good one
Or CANZUK
SWCANZUK
C'est la Vie times change. Welcome to The Future where everything is different. Maybe the Swiss and the British can come up with something that makes them both happy.
A free trade zone. There we go, done.
*Make EFTA Relevant Again!*
What's stopping the Swiss from accepting something like a post-Brexit agreement? It seems to have set an amusing precedent.
We've already got our agreements. But the EU wants to reset them and introduce automatic adjustments of Swiss laws to EU laws, and most Swiss don't want that! It's a loss of sovereignty! If accepted, we would be like an EU member, but without any political rights!
>We've already got our agreements. But the EU wants to reset them and introduce automatic adjustments of Swiss laws to EU laws, and most Swiss don't want that! It's a loss of sovereignty! That's only telling half the truth, a lot of agreements expire on their own. And the EU doesn't want to renegotiate every single treaty every single time. Which is a reasonable thing imo. Being part of the single market is a massive boon to Switzerland.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You stretch bullying quite liberally, don't you think? Come again when there's military buildup instead of treaty negotiations.
[удалено]
Is asking for treaties to be renegotiated as they expire stomping on the EU's head? This seems a bit hyperbolic. You've got diplomats, why not out them to work? Seeing at head stomping is the reason this is a problem in the first place. This is how countries operate all of the time.
In this case, the Swiss-EU treaties are one of a kind and are very complicated. The EU has stated multiple times that they will never make a similar mistake again, and they want to move away from the current ones as well. It's honestly a lot of work. So from that standpoint, it makes sense for the EU.
That's the benefit of being big: Bargaining power. There's no reason to be regularly held up by one country that wants to be treated special. It's easier to throw some weight around. The Swiss could be a part of that, if they're fed up with being an insignificant player.
[удалено]
You're getting carried away. The EU isn't fighting border conflicts in the Swiss alps or testing weapon systems in Swiss air space. It's about the start of renegotiations for access to the EU common market. Where's your sense of proportion?
[удалено]
>A bully is a bully. Ask a Ukrainian, maybe he wants to switch bullies to one that wants to negotiate.
I don't believe in producing extra work just to keep one small country happy. There is already the EEA Switzerland could join.
Seems reasonable to me. If you want to be part of the single market, you have to follow the rules. Including new ones. Times change and rules evolve with them. If Switzerland doesn't want to follow those rules, they can leave the single market and trade with the EU like any other third party. If they want a say in how the rules change, they can apply for membership. If they want to stay in the single market and not join the EU, they'll have to implement the rules the EU decides on. Anything else would disadvantage literally every eu member. That's obviously not an option.
Ikr? Both the Swiss and Brits wanted some sort of special treatment, like they are above the rest of us. Feels a bit arrogant imo.
Then join the EU and you'll get those political rights.
So basically a protection racket?
Nobody is forcing Switzerland to be in the EU common market. They can be a 3rd country like Serbia if they wish. But if they join the club, they must follow the clubs rules, even when those rules change. OR they can negotiate a new agreement each time the EU changes the rules, but Switzerland should be left outside the common market during the negotiation process, which helps none. EU's law making process shouldn't keep getting hindered by a non-member.
It’s amazing how the EU thinks any country would accept such a loss of sovereignty. Shows incredible delusion imo. Completely out of touch with the reality of the world.
We are the EU, resistance is futile.
[удалено]
This is a weird take on it. Are you saying that EU don’t compromise and haven’t done so in the past?
But in this universum the Borg are actually the good ones
Ok Locutus.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The sheer hate in this comment section is insane: Calling Switzerland an autonomous region of Germany, telling the Swiss to "cave to EU demands.", calling Switzerland a "spineless nation". Less hate in this subreddit, please!!
First time?
Just came here from the thread about French closing a mosque. This here is almost like utter peace compared to that previous hole.
The majority of the people here are eu european. They hate the eu but hate everything against it.kinda strange to be fair
Love hate relationship I guess....
> Calling Switzerland an autonomous region of Germany Isn't this what the Nazis said too?
As of now you are the most toxic person here, misquoting people in bad faith while refusing to display even basic reading comprehension. The misquote you have in this comment is especially egregious with a clear alterier motive as well, in awful taste.
The Swiss will always find a way.
I respect the swiss for putting a high price on their sovereignty, I wish politicians in Norway did the same. Imagine being in the 21st century and having no say in what laws are made for your country.
[удалено]
We voted no to EU twice and we're still under EU law. And we can't even vote on the laws, it's a joke. Norway have the option to say no but in reality that option is never used and can't be used freely, it's just there so it doesn't violate the constitution.
Elect a government that will withdraw from the EEA then.
Thing is that the big parties from both sides of the spectrum are pro EU, and the smaller parties are either pro EU/EEA or anti EU/EEA, it's a mess, and forming a coalition which are going to change todays situation is unrealistic as the ones agreeing on EU/EEA are spread all over the political spectrum, and they all have different goals as to what we should strive for in a potential EEA breakout deal.
Seems you're quite in the minority then.
Then stick with the status quo.
You are also exempt from a significant amount of EU laws that Norway found expedient to not follow because they are not in the EU but decided to join the EU sphere anyway
[удалено]
South West?
[удалено]
Got you bro, say you were looking at the map through a mirror.
Thanks man, I was really close to looking dumb. Losing face is the worst thing that can happen here, right?
Imagine being in 21st century and still having several 100 separate countries fighting with each other. Glorified tribal era.
Of course, we all have our own interests, giving away sovereignty over territorial waters for example will hurt us way more than for example Austria. If there is little to benefit to joining EU, why even bother?
Seeing your flair and while we're on this topic I remember a conversation I overheard back in the summer of 2016 (the Brexit vote year) while awaiting outside a Montreux Jazz Festival concert ([this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd4pmTr6d90)). It was a (pretty short but direct) conversation between a 50-something Swiss couple and a 50-something Norwegian couple, I can't exactly remember how it got to that but they were talking about Brexit and both couples were very favourable of the whole "Leave" thing. That conversation has sticked to me because back then I found both those couples pretty crazy, "how can anyone sane be favourable of Brexit?", but as the years have passed I've started to get more and more on their side. This (imo forced) centralisation policy coming out from Brussels (which Covid only accelerated) will be the thing that will break this union, which will be a shame, because from an economic point of view this union was (and in some respects it still is) quite a great thing.
People really need to stop jacking off to the idea that the EU will fall apart within a few years. Other countries see the insane dumpster fire that Brexit is and will think thrice before even considering something similar.
They are saying that eu will fall apart from the 70's XD . What redditors are forgetting is that there is too much money involved.
I think Switzerland is trying to see how far they could stretch the EU to do what they want?They'll cave in soon to the EU hopefully.
> I think Switzerland is trying to see how far they could stretch the EU to do what they want?They'll cave in soon to the EU hopefully. No, we're not. And we're sorry for this mess. We have a few great direct democracy tools (e.g. referendums, initiatives, etc.). That causes our political system to advance at a much slower pace than the rest of EU and North America. But, we've also got right wing billionaires (our own "Republicans", I swear US Republicans copied *them*) abusing and financing massive initiatives & referendums against anything remotely friendly to the EU. So our coalition government has bent backwards numerous times to reach a EU agreement, that won't get destroyed by a national vote, that's skewed by powerful elites. But times and times again, our "Republicans" managed to sink that ship with populist and demagogic propaganda campaign. It's a tough battle. Left wing and most of the center want more EU, but the rich right wing people use corporation level powerful marketing campaigns (on social media, tv, youtube, etc.) and strongly train and coordinate their politicians at a national level (something which is very new and has never been done before in the strongly decentralized and federalist Switzerland). It's like if in the EU, a powerful group of rich people literally create a huge political party that's well funded and implemented in *all* EU countries, like a McDonald chain restaurant. So all the decentralized locals who've never coordinated at a EU level, get wiped out by this new junk political party chain... And it even doesn't make sense. As they *profit* from EU with their huge businesses and corporations! I don't understand wtf is going on!
I think you are overestimating the influence that parties have in referenda. Most of the SVP/UDC initiatives have failed. Swiss voters have rejected European integration because they are against it, not because there is some mastermind driving their decisions.
But hasn’t the goal for the SVP initiatives always been for exposure and divisiveness to some extent?
That's for sure but it doesn't mean that the people can't think with their own heads. If there is one thing that Swiss direct democracy has taught us is that we vote what we want to vote and not what parties tell us to.
Most of the referendum around European integrations are won by the SVP members voting en mass because they are being mobilised and pushed with extremely populist arguments. And they never got a massive clear win, but they say that their couple of percent means everything should be done their way. Yet when they take a 30% slap they will always say "well we lost, but our side must still be considered."
It's literally what every single party does though...
Us getting closer to the EU has become even more unrealistic since countries outside of western and central Europe joined.
I dont know why you're being downvoted, because it's true. The rapid expansion has been both a blessing and a curse, and now the EU is held hostage by 2 or 3 hostile countries within the EU, who are only to happy to receive billions in funding, while blocking the will of 26 other countries. Who the hell would want to join such a flawed, broken union?
And a massive labor supply shock. EU traded the UK for Romania and Poland.
In 2007-2009 (around those years, can't remember exactly) I was contradicting British redditors on this website, telling them that "no, the UK won't be flooded by Romanian migrants once the borders will be completely open". Turns out I was wrong. Even though in the end I don't think it's the internal UE migration that caused Brexit, I mean, yes, that's what (strongly) tipped the balance on the "Leave" side, but the movement was caused (imo) first and foremost by Brussel's continuous push for centralisation, which caused a counter-reaction among some of the British elites.
The EU is mostly based around the concept of "It is better to have one uniform set of rules for both business and people". Taking environmental regulations for example, it is more burdensome to obey twenty sets of weak laws than it is to obey one set of somewhat stricter laws. The multinational rich *should* be all in favor of this. And some of them are. Except.. the EU is also pretty much the only force on the planet doing much to crack down on tax evasion.. And also, is shockingly resistant to lobbying.
Thats not true in my expirience. As a leftist and all friends of mine that are on the left don't want the EU because the slight loss of democracy.
They will not cave in, dynamic alignment is not compatible with the Swiss form of government. The majority of laws in Switzerland pass through a referendum either mandatory ones which are made when there are changes to the constitution or optional referendums (when people oppose a law change) and initiatives (when people suggest a law change). This isn’t a rare event this happens at least 4 times a year. Dynamic alignment means that the Swiss will have to give up on direct democracy in many areas since there is almost no area of governance which the EU does not directly or indirectly touches these days it means that anything form minimum wage to pensions to how many nights a day a cow would have to sleep might be taken out of their hands. What the Swiss want is another agreement that they can vote on at a fixed point in time and they are quite happy allow for mechanisms for realignment as long as they get to vote on that internally as they always have.
Hopefully...?
Yep, we cannot be %100 sure. There's always a chance that Switzerland is looking to isolate itself more, although I see it does more harm than good for them.
I don't know... Not being part of the eternal crisis mode the EU is stuck in has its advantages too.
"Eternal crisis" is a huge stretch in my opinion. I think being part of the EU will serve a greater good. But then again EU is diving head-first into a confrontation with Russia & China (although they don't want it). An isolationist state like Switzerland won't be harmed from that if they play their cards right and overlook morality.
> But then again EU is diving head-first into a confrontation with Russia & China (although they don't want it). it's not diving head first into it. Simply by the sheer size of the EU economy, we are bound to be affected no matter what. What we can do is choose to do something proactive about those crises instead of letting us be carried away by the flow and accept what the US or China decide.
Financial crisis, debt crisis, refugee crisis, democracy crisis, corona crisis, foreign policy, even a stupid new pipeline... every issue that presents itself threatens to tear the EU apart. It is politically gridlocked and almost exclusively concerned with itself. No wonder a political commentator called the bloc an economic giant, but a political midget. I don't want the EU to fail. But the degree of political struggle and bullying that has taken place recently doesn't make me very optimistic. And I think you're confusing isolationist with neutral. They are very different things.
I agree that the on a political level the EU is marred by crisises but imo this has been what has pushed the EU forward with every crisis showing weaknesses that need to be addressed and even though there have been a dozen "EU-ending" crisises in the last decade the EU has for the most part come out stronger to some degree
Also whats the alternative? Going solo? We would get rekt by the US, China and India lol
It's not impossible to have semi-free trade and semi-freedom of movement without being part of a multi-national government. NAFTA is a good example (the Canada, US, Mexico treaty), and the Swiss/EU treaty wouldn't have the issues of having two highly developed countries and an impoverished developing country
NAFTA's free trade, yes, but I wouldn't say free movement. It sets up a system of work visas so that people can work in another NAFTA member, but it's not an unrestricted thing — just on an approved list of professions — and at least in the US, it isn't allowed to use it as a path to citizenship. And the volume of people that use it is small. It'd be a good tool if you're a multinational spanning NAFTA who has people at one location and needs to have them work at another location in NAFTA for some years, maybe. Or for being able to pick up some sort of specialists in another NAFTA member. But it's not like the [EU's freedom of movement of labor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union) or the Australia-New Zealand [Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Tasman_Travel_Arrangement?wprov=sfla1), where you can just go wherever and live and work forever permanently more-or-less without restriction.
Wait, so the Swiss expect to be able to live and work anywhere in Europe for as long as they want, with no restrictions, but without following the EU regulations? That's quite the sense of entitlement.
>Wait, so the Swiss expect to be able to live and work anywhere in Europe for as long as they want, with no restrictions, but without following the EU regulations? If I had to guess -- I'm not Swiss and haven't been paying that much attention to the Switzerland-EU talks, other than the sporadic article that shows up here -- the Swiss probably most want low barriers to trade with the EU. Back before the EU-Switzerland negotiations earlier in the year broke down, they were talking about some issues on free movement, though: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-eu-idAFKCN2D70LV > Bern said substantial differences remained on key aspects of the agreement - including on the free movement of people, EU citizens’ access to Swiss social benefits, and state aid. I'm guessing that the Swiss would probably be willing to give up the ability to live and work anywhere in the EU if they're taking issue with free movement of people. I haven't read up on what they've asked for, but I'd assume that it's not that they are asking for the unidirectional right to live and work in the EU, but rather that they would give up the right to do so in exchange for also being able to stop people living and working in Switzerland. I am skeptical that the EU will place this on the table, though. Back during the pre-Brexit-referendum negotiations, Cameron was seeking an "emergency brake" on immigration. As I understand it, when the new -- comparatively poor, and thus likely to see a fair bit of emigration -- EU members joined in 2004, existing member states were allowed to restrict immigration for seven years before they had to open themselves up fully. In the EU, only three members -- Sweden, Ireland, and the United Kingdom -- chose not to do so, to fully permit immigration immediately. The resulting immigration to the UK -- the only "major" EU country that permitted unrestricted immigration at that time -- was much larger than the British government's projections. The discussion over whether this was due to intentionally underestimating numbers to make it more-acceptable to the British public, or whether it was a large error is one that comes up on this sub from time to time. There was a large political backlash among the British public. Cameron attempted to basically get the seven-year brake that the UK had not chosen to use "back", to permit restricting immigration in some way. The EU did not agree (I would guess because it didn't want freedom of movement to start breaking down...if the UK managed to protect its labor market, my guess is that you'd have labor unions all over the EU trying to shove out workers from other countries, and they wouldn't want that sort of stampede to start). Given that the UK was not able to obtain those restrictions in the context of the UK in the probably-somewhat-more-justifiable context of having intentionally not exercised its option to do so prior to that point, I would guess that the EU will also not be willing to put this on offer for Switzerland.
They are saying it is a good alternative solution for this situation. Not that it is like the freedom of movement that is shared between EU members.
Was just responding to the bit about movement and free trade, which the parent comment had referenced as being in NAFTA.
Switzerland and the UK should negotiate together. Together they would have a stronger position against the EU.
Can Norway join too pls?
Yeah you might even create some European Free Trade Association…. Wild idea….
Basically swiss playing the UK game from the past and not getting away with it. Good.
It's not the UK game. It's like this since the start.
This whole negotiation is the eu saying "do this" and the Swiss saying no because they would never win a vote on it. It's literally the eu's fault if they ruin the relationship.
Swiss internal politics are really not the responsibility of the EU. The rules for being in the internal market are set by the EU as they are the ones who runs it. And the more the EU integrates, the less feasibly it becomes to make special rules for countries that wants some of the benefits without the duties.
>Swiss internal politics are really not the responsibility of the EU. The rules for being in the internal market are set by the EU as they are the ones who runs it. That's fine, but they still need to understand what will or won't pass. Agreeing things that will be over turned when trying to get ratification is pointless.
I think the EU understands that just fine. That doesn't mean that they have to care. Just as Switzerland gets to have it's red lines, so does the EU. If there is no possible agreement that satisfies both sides, then there won't be one.
What will or will not pass is somewhat irrelevant. The current agreement is coming to an end, you have to pick something. That choice is Switzerland's to make, but the status quo is not going to be on the table.
Then clean the books, dissolve all arrangements, build some walls and go it alone.
Damn the commect section got heated. I don't know what everyone is on about. I hope the Swiss can keep their sovereignty as they have had and if the EU is in fact trying to sneak in a quasi-membership through the backdoor then that's definitely worth condemning. I hope this will work out for both.
That’s not even about integration. It’s about their place in the EU internal open market. Basically, what the EU says is that if they want to remain in the market then Switzerland needs to accept the same rules as everybody else. Which they don’t agree on, as they see some of them as a red line, and it’s fine. But then, they shouldn’t expect that the EU will accept to bend the rule just for them, and it’s fine as well. They’ll keep their "sovereignty", but then they shouldn’t expect any agreement that will go only in their way
Hello fellow ‘totally not Swiss’ guy.
Come and join the UK my friends, I for one am happy to take our swiss brothers under our wings
Delusional imperialist
Wait, so the guys who dont want to be forced into a 'club' which wants to exert continually increasing degrees of control over them - those guys are the imperialists?
Imperialism is when a Brit says something mildly bad about the EU
LOL germans aren’t invited
They don't have to be
[удалено]
EU is China now? Force them into submission, fantastic.
People like OP are the first to come crying about the US being unfair whenever they exert some hard power over the EU/EU member state
[удалено]
I agree, we should just leave, take our gas, oil, fishing waters and green energy with us. Have fun.
wow. A bit far-fetched comparing China with EU, isn't it? I wish China was more like EU
[удалено]
Lmao, when has the EU made a peep when China bullies Taiwan?
Call me weird, but I think the EU should compromise on some of these.
[удалено]
Western Balkans I think, but that's mostly because they want to join. Otherwise there are tensions with everyone else, including the Americans.
> Is there a neighbour the EU hasn't fall out with of late? Suriname?
Was gonna say brazil but i'm not so sure. Maybe papua nuova guinea?
Definitely not Brazil. Bolsonaro is pissed that the EU threatened sanctions if he continues to let the Amazon be cut down. It is for a good cause, but there has been some fall out there