Majority of the people and cantons Parliament backs controversial plan: A Yes vote alone should not be enough for EU treaties
The people and the cantons should say yes to the "Bilaterals III". The newly negotiated EU treaty package should be linked to a transitional article in the constitution. The National Council Committee supports this approach of the Council of States Committee.
22.05.2026, 12:14
22.05.2026, 13:12
SDA
The new treaties between Switzerland and the EU ("Bilaterals III") should not only be put to the people. The cantons should also have a say. Important parliamentary committees are in favor of this.
The Constitutional Policy Committee of the Council of States (SPK-S) has submitted a parliamentary initiative. Its proposal: the treaty package should be incorporated into the Federal Constitution via a transitional provision. The National Council's sister committee (SPK-N) supports this approach by 15 votes to 10.
In concrete terms, this would mean Bilaterals III would need a double yes - i.e. a majority of voters and a majority of the cantons. Only then could the necessary laws for implementation come into force.
Dispute among lawyers
The parliamentary services write that the great importance of the treaties justifies this step. The agreements would practically have constitutional status.
However, the members of the National Council are not entirely in agreement. A majority of the SPK-N finds another way easier: a so-called mandatory referendum sui generis. This would also allow the people and cantons to vote on the EU treaties. By 16 votes to 9, the committee therefore called for this option to be examined more closely.
The background to this is a dispute among lawyers that has been going on for months: Does an EU treaty of this magnitude have to go before the people? There are differing opinions on this.
With its proposal, the Council of States Committee wants to defuse this conflict. The idea: a new constitutional provision would expressly permit the treaties - but only if the people and cantons agree.
Minority: compromises at risk
Nevertheless, there is resistance. A minority of the SPK-N rejects the proposal. It warns: with a constitutional amendment, the treaties and the associated legislative changes could no longer be voted on as a complete package. This could jeopardize political compromises - for example on wage protection.
Critics are also asking a question: why do some consider a sui generis referendum to be constitutional - but at the same time are calling for a constitutional amendment? Next, the Federal Council can comment on the initiative. Parliament will then decide. In the end, the issue could end up at the ballot box anyway - and then the people and the cantons would have the final say.
