Bilateral Agreements III: Federal Council closes ro Double Majority; Parliament Remains Divided

This summary serves as a parallel update to the analysis published in Ticinus on August 14, 2026, titled “Switzerland–EU Bilateral Agreements III: Institutional Challenges for Swiss Democracy.” Within the same 24 hours that article was published, the Federal Council blocked two parallel paths toward a mandatory referendum on the Bilateral Agreements III—a parliamentary initiative and a popular initiative—with outcomes that warrant a joint reading. The facts: two doors closed in one day On August 12, 2026, the Federal Council rejected Parliamentary Initiative 26.425 of the Council of States’ Committee on Political Institutions (CIP-S), which called for subjecting the Bilateral Agreements III to a mandatory referendum through a transitional constitutional provision. The government reiterated its position of April 30, 2025: in its view, the agreements do not meet the requirements of Art. 140, para. 1 of the Constitution (admin.ch). The following day, August 13, the Federal Council also adopted the message on the “Bussola” popular initiative, recommending its rejection without a counterproposal (EJPD). The institutional difference between the two cases, however, is decisive. The CIP-S depends on approval by the Council of States, where the government’s negative opinion carries direct weight; the chambers remain divided, however, with the Council of States’ Foreign Affairs Committee opposing it by a vote of 8 to 5 and the corresponding committee in the National Council supporting it by margins of 16 to 9 and 15 to 10 (parlament.ch; SVP Zürich). The Bussola initiative, on the other hand, has already collected 111,422 valid signatures and formally reached the quorum on October 21, 2025: the Federal Council may recommend its rejection, but it cannot prevent the people from voting on it, as a transitional provision would require a new referendum—this time mandatory—on the Bilateral Agreements III if the vote on the Bussola initiative were to take place after the vote on the Switzerland-EU package (Reuters). Analysis: A Three-Way Standoff, and Two Unresolved Asymmetries Viewed as a whole, the issue takes the form of a constitutional standoff involving three actors—the Federal Council, Parliament, and the people—in which each controls a different lever, and in which the Compass remains the only lever that the other two cannot neutralize: its retroactive clause is, under current law, the only instrument still capable of bringing the Bilateral Agreements III back to a double-majority vote after their eventual ratification. Two asymmetries, already noted in the November 2025 reference analysis, remain unresolved by these developments. The first is economic: the package accounts for about 40% of federal GDP but about 60% of Ticino’s GDP, due to the canton’s high level of cross-border integration and the 80,000 cross-border workers employed there—an exposure one and a half times higher than the national average, which the optional referendum alone does not allow to be treated as a separate item. The second concerns neutrality: none of the agreements contains a horizontal clause excluding the use of Swiss infrastructure, energy, data, or research for purposes incompatible with neutrality in the dual-use sectors covered by the package (energy, space, research, and healthcare). On September 27, 2026, voters will vote separately on the “Safeguarding Swiss Neutrality” initiative — but even its defeat, which polls suggest is likely (54% opposed, 34% in favor as of June 2026, Corriere del Ticino), would leave the specific gap regarding Bilateral Agreements III intact, shifting political weight—if anything—to the “Bussola” as a residual channel. Conclusion Nine months after the Bellinzona report, the events of August 12–13 confirm rather than refute the interpretation proposed at that time: the absence of a stable constitutional requirement regarding the type of referendum leaves a decision—which should be based on a predictable criterion applicable regardless of who is in power and which agreement is under discussion—to the political discretion of the moment. The issue remains squarely political and will shift to the upcoming weeks of parliamentary debate on Initiative 26.425, to the campaign for the September 27 vote on neutrality, and—in the longer term—to a possible vote on the Bussola itself. For the relevant institutional analysis, including a comprehensive mapping of the regulatory impact of the Third Round of Bilateral Agreements, see the article published in Ticinus: “Switzerland–EU Bilateral Agreements III: Institutional Challenges for Swiss Democracy.”

ITEN