A proudly independent European nation confronted with a stark political choice: keep EU single market access but only by making financial payments, taking migrants and giving up judicial power.
This time the question is not one for Brexit Britain — but Switzerland.
After more than a decade of grinding talks with Brussels, the Alpine country has reached a deal to keep and improve its access to the EU’s single market.
But the agreement — which will be put to a referendum — includes all the same thorny issues that have bedevilled the UK-EU relationship, including budget contributions, migration policy and the role of foreign judges.
Nearly 1,000 pages of text, unveiled last month after a deal was signed in December, would finally anchor Switzerland more firmly to the world’s largest single market.
But even the six market access agreements, which try to bring order to the tangle of previous arrangements, would still be on top of about 120 additional sectoral agreements that remain in place.
If approved, the new framework binds Switzerland to mirror changes to EU legislation in areas including the regulation of goods, migration, electricity and transport — or face retaliatory measures. Bern would have little influence over how the rules develop, but it would be obliged to pay €375mn annually into the EU budget.
Switzerland could be readmitted as an associate member into the bloc’s Horizon Europe science programme and become part of the nuclear science body Euratom and the student exchange scheme Erasmus.
The pact in many ways parallels the UK’s struggle of balancing sovereignty with EU market access. In May, the EU and UK agreed a number of changes from fisheries to energy as part of a relationship “reset”.
“There has been a pick-up in engagement and interest by the British in the negotiations we have been having with Brussels,” said one Swiss official.
The negotiations also come as both London and Bern are seeking deeper defence and security ties with the bloc after President Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw US guarantees that have underpinned Europe’s security since the second world war.
“The EU’s public position has long been that the Swiss and UK negotiations are separate, but in practice EU negotiators were keen to avoid setting precedents in one negotiation that might affect the other,” said Anton Spisak, an associate fellow at the Centre for European Reform.
He added it was “no surprise” the same EU officials were involved in the Swiss negotiations and the recent UK-EU reset. There were nearly identical outcomes on issues like food safety (SPS) and governance in both agreements.
Now Switzerland will have to accept or reject the deal, a process that will take several years.
First will be a public consultation process until the autumn, then the text — possibly with some amendments — will be handed to parliament to start debating next year. The government aims to hold the referendum by June 2027, otherwise national elections later that year will push it into 2028.
The “dynamic alignment” — automatic adoption of changes to EU laws — are on six key areas: mutual recognition of goods standards, electricity, food safety, air and land transport and freedom of movement. Bern can lobby Brussels and EU members when they work on updates to those rules, but has no say in the final outcome and faces sanctions if it fails to implement the changes.
This will be uncomfortable for many Swiss given their deeply entrenched system of direct democracy. “The Swiss have always followed these updates anyway. But they want to have the ability to choose. That is the key difference for us,” said one Zurich-based financier.
The agreements include an arbitration clause that ensures disputes are resolved by an independent panel — rather than unilaterally by EU courts — to address Swiss concerns over sovereignty and legal autonomy.
But when the case involves EU law, the arbitration panel must ask the European Court of Justice, the bloc’s top court, for a binding interpretation.
Carl Baudenbacher, a lawyer and expert on international business law, argued the ECJ would be the true legal authority behind the scenes.
“The arbitrators are legally obliged to ask the CJEU in the most important cases and the judgment is legally binding on the arbitration panel. It is essentially camouflage,” he said.
Like in the UK, ECJ jurisdiction and the “dynamic” adoption of EU laws are becoming lightning rods for Switzerland’s own Eurosceptic movement.
“The dynamic takeover of EU law and ECJ rulings ultimately changes the system of direct democracy in Switzerland. It downgrades our competitiveness,” said Kompass/Europa chief executive Philip Erzinger. The anti-EU group, started by private equity billionaires and other entrepreneurs, is gathering signatures to launch an initiative for the public vote on the matter.
“For example, you don’t need an agreement on free movement of people to hire people from foreign countries,” Erzinger added.
Switzerland’s far-right SVP is against the deal though it had found support on the left. The centrist parties such as the Liberals are yet to take a stance.
There is also a question of punishment if Switzerland votes no. In 2021, when Switzerland walked away from talks, the EU retaliated by downgrading Swiss participation in the Horizon Europe. That could happen again if the deal was not ratified by the end of 2028.
EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič has refused to be drawn on possible action. But EU officials told the Financial Times that maintaining the status quo was not an option.
Swiss officials say the erosion of the existing bilateral agreements could have serious long-term ramifications, for example in terms of Swiss export capacity, security and transport between Switzerland and EU countries.
“If there is a No [vote], the EU feels this needs to be the end of the road for the bilateral way and the special treatment for Switzerland,” said an official familiar with thinking in Brussels.
Others, however, think it is high time to do a deal with Switzerland’s largest trading partner.
“We have been living with this drama since the 90s. Europe is our biggest trading partner and we need to solve the problem institutionally as opposed to sector by sector,” said Jean Keller, head of Geneva-based fund manager Quaero Capital.
“Yes, we need to make sure things like workers’ rights are protected, but finally finding a framework that is durable for us to do business in Europe is imperative.”
