Bilateral Agreements III: Switzerland–EU—Institutional Issues and Their Implications

Bilateral Agreements III CH–EU: Institutional Questions and Their Ramifications Contextualization Outline of the address delivered in Mendrisio (the Filanda) on 17 January 2026, at the conference on Bilaterals III organized by the NO EU, NO NATO group. Niccolò Salvioni's talk opened the proceedings by setting out the underlying institutional coordinates, followed by contributions from Graziano Pestoni (the electricity agreement), Leonardo Schmidt (free movement of persons), and Alberto Togni (EU–NATO relations and neutrality). The text was reworked and expanded after the conference, with subsequent additions on cybersecurity and the European informational dimension. Published on 20 January 2026. Annotated Table of Contents Preamble — The mandate of the address: four constitutional questions the Federal Council avoided across the 896 pages of the explanatory report (13 June 2025). Block 1 — The numerical scope. The amplifying effect: 1–1.5% of the EU acquis translates into 12–16% of Swiss federal legislation, with cantonal (14–18 Ticino laws) and municipal ramifications. Block 2 — The transformation of the system. From the static model of Bilaterals I–II (1999–2021) to binding dynamic adoption (from 2025); the anomalous speed of negotiations (197 meetings in 9 months versus the 7 years of Bilaterals I). Block 3 — The six critical institutional pillars. Binding CJEU jurisdiction; decision shaping (participation without representation, contrasting the Norwegian veto under Art. 102 EEA with Switzerland's "illusory deferral"); cross-retaliation measures; the asymmetry of immunity of EU officials; Switzerland's hybrid status as a "microstate"; the marginalization of Parliament and the people. Block 4 — The civil-military dual-use dimension. The Federal Council's silence on the strategic-military dimension; the mid-term reform of EU cohesion policy (COM(2025) 163, objective RSO 3.3); the excursuses on Switzerland–EU–NATO cyber cooperation and on the threat to Swiss media independence (DSA, EMFA, Digital Europe Programme); the critical agreements (energy, land transport, air transport); neutrality from commercial freedom to infrastructural constraint, with the historical precedents of the Gotthard 1914–1918 and Switzerland 1939–1945. Block 5 — The chronological paradox. The coincidence between the launch of the "package" (23 February 2022) and the invasion of Ukraine (24 February); the adoption of sanctions within four days; the hypothetical "Summer 2028" war scenario. Block 6 — GDP impact and irreversibility. 40% of federal GDP involved; the cohesion contribution (over CHF 3 billion, 2030–2036); strategic irreversibility. Block 7 — Federalism and the equality of the cantons (Arts. 3, 43, 46 of the Constitution). The asymmetry of impact between border cantons (Ticino, 60% of GDP) and inland cantons (15%), with the republican paradox of majority voting. Conclusion — The four unanswered questions: mandatory referendum (Art. 140), compatibility with neutrality, strategic irreversibility, federalist compatibility. Synthesis The paper examines Bilaterals III not from the economic or sectoral standpoint, but from the institutional and constitutional one. Its central thesis is that the shift from a static system to one of binding dynamic adoption transforms between 12 and 16% of federal legislation, subjects disputes to the binding jurisdiction of the CJEU, and introduces cross-retaliation between agreements—thereby constituting, though without declaring it, an accession to a supranational community that ought to trigger the mandatory referendum under Art. 140 of the Constitution. The author develops two particularly original strands. The first is the comparison with Norway and the United Kingdom: both states, though NATO members or bound to the EU by defence partnerships, retain greater legislative sovereignty than "neutral" Switzerland, which accepts infrastructural constraints comparable to those of an Atlantic ally without possessing either the Norwegian veto (Art. 102 EEA) or the British capacity to refuse automatic commitments. From this follows the "triangular paradox" of a neutrality that is neutral only de jure while amounting to a de facto alignment. The second strand is the dual-use gap: across the report's 896 pages there is no analysis whatsoever of the compatibility between the integration of critical infrastructure (energy via ENTSO-E/ACER, the Alpine corridors, airspace) and the neutrality obligations of the 1907 Hague Conventions. Drawing on the Gotthard precedents, the author argues that neutrality does not prohibit trade but requires sovereign control over strategic infrastructure—control that binding integration compromises. To this is added the extension of the problem into the informational sphere, with the risk of a "soft external steering" of public-service media through the DSA, the EMFA, and co-financed algorithms. The analysis closes with the federalist question: the asymmetric impact across cantons (up to 60% of Ticino's GDP against 15% for the inland cantons) receives no consideration in the report, even though the referendum vote assigns equal weight to cantons with radically different exposure. The concluding message, addressed to Ticino, claims as a minimum republican guarantee the mandatory referendum for decisions that alter 60% of the cantonal economy.

ITEN