Fédéral Béati, Monsieur Michael Chul is director of the Federal Office of Justice and the premier rank of my office, he also salutes Michel Besson and Christophe Yeni who are respective bosses and suppléant de l'unit project 2. Monsieur Leier Fédéral J, you have the parole. Dear Vice Chancellor, esteemed Director, esteemed media professionals, ladies and gentlemen, it is wonderful that you are here to report on the Federal Council's message regarding the Compass Initiative . This is an important topic. The question is whether mandatory referendums with cantons should be required for state treaties, especially with the EU, in the future . And this raises the question of whether the rules of the game for the referendums on the bilateral agreements, i.e., the package for stabilizing and further developing bilateral relations between Switzerland and the EU, may be changed retroactively . The Federal Council has adopted the message on the Compass Initiative . He rejects the initiative and refrains from both a direct counter-proposal and an indirect counter-proposal. Why? The Federal Council is convinced that the initiative is not suitable for answering the fundamental political question of expanding the referendum on state treaties . The initiative is complex and pursues various goals. She wants to strengthen the economic location , expand the mandatory state treaty referendum, and make the adoption of important legal provisions subject to additional requirements. These are concerns that affect our state system and our relationship to international law . To achieve these goals, it proposes a total of four amendments to the Federal Constitution. Firstly, the federal government should pursue an independent foreign economic policy that takes into account the needs of Switzerland as an internationally networked business location. Secondly, and this is the actual subject of the initiative, should international treaties that provide for the adoption of important legal provisions be subject to mandatory public and cantonal voting in the future ? This refers primarily to international treaties with dynamic legal provisions. Today, such international treaties are generally subject to an optional referendum. So, a majority of the people is needed, but not a majority of the estates. The initiative aims to change that. For the three bilateral agreements, this would mean that they would be subject to a mandatory referendum, and therefore, in addition to the people, the cantons would also be required. Thirdly, the initiative restricts the scope of action of the federal authorities . It requires that the adoption of important legal provisions be expressly regulated in a federal law or in a state treaty that is subject to a mandatory referendum . Furthermore, the adoption of these legal provisions must be limited to a, and I quote, narrowly defined subject area, and this term does not yet exist in the constitution. What constitutes a narrowly defined subject area is therefore unclear. Parliament would first have to define this term. Overall, this would make it more difficult for parliament to approve international treaties. It would make it more difficult for parliament to include such provisions in international treaties . Fourthly, the initiative contains a transitional provision. This provides for a guarantee of the continued existence of those international treaties that are already in force on the day of the referendum, for example the Bilateral Agreements 1 and 2. These treaties will therefore remain in force. The new regulations would not apply to them. According to the initiative text, this guarantee of continued existence for the bilateral agreements would only apply if they had previously been accepted by the people and the cantons . Under current law, however, an optional referendum with a popular vote is required for the three bilateral agreements. As you can see, the initiative is not limited to the question of the estate; it intervenes in several areas of the existing state system. In the opinion of the Federal Council, the constitutional amendments proposed by the initiative are not suitable for achieving the aforementioned goals . On the contrary, they create new legal uncertainties. They raise additional questions and do not provide the clarity that an amendment to the Federal Constitution should bring about, especially on such institutional issues. Against this background, the Federal Council rejects the initiative. Les modifications constitutionnelles proposé cré de new incertitudes juridiques. Elle soulève de new questions et elle n'è pas la clarté qu'on attend d'une modification de la constitution. Cons federal rejection of the initiative. Quanto chiesto dall'iniziativa crea nuova incertezza giuridica, suscita nuovi nuovi interrogativi, non fa chiarezza come dovrebbe invece fare una modifica della Costituzione. All the light on the quantity of this, the Federal Council responds to the initiative. I would now like to elaborate a little more on the Federal Council's rejection. Firstly, the initiative links fundamental constitutional questions with a specific political case. It directly links the expansion of the state treaty referendum to the Bilateral Agreements 3. The Federal Council rejects this. The state treaty referendum is a strong pillar of our direct democracy. Changes to this system should therefore not be made because of a single business transaction, but independently of it. And within the framework of a fundamental debate with a mandatory vote on international treaties, for example... The smaller cantons are favored over the larger ones . They would gain political weight. Secondly, key provisions of the initiative are vaguely formulated. This applies in particular to the requirements for the adoption of important legal provisions. It remains unclear how these guidelines would be applied in practice. Therefore, it is unclear to voters what legal consequences the acceptance of the initiative would actually have. And thirdly, the transitional provision is also problematic. It aims to influence and change the voting modalities for the bilateral agreements during the ongoing political process . The Federal Council considers such a procedure inappropriate. For legal certainty, it is crucial that any change to the democratic rules of the game applies only to future votes. Finally, the transitional provision creates further significant legal uncertainty. It does not adequately regulate the legal consequences of accepting the initiative . In particular, it remains unclear how the Federal Council and Parliament would have to implement the provision and how any renewed vote on the bilateral agreements would be structured. The initiative therefore also sends a signal of uncertainty in foreign policy , which damages Switzerland's credibility and jeopardizes our economic location. Finally, I will address the question of why the Federal Council has refrained from submitting a counter-proposal. The Federal Council has decided not to propose either a direct counter-proposal or an indirect counter-proposal to the Compass Initiative. And there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, attempts to extend the mandatory referendum on international treaties have failed in the past, both in parliament and at the ballot box, most clearly at the ballot box in 2012, when the "International Treaties for the People" initiative was rejected by 75% . All the stalls said no. Secondly, the Federal Council does not consider the Compass Initiative, with its various concerns, to be a suitable basis for a renewed fundamental discussion. It requires double the sea only for international treaties with dynamic legal adoption, but not for other international treaties with far-reaching legal or even constitutional implications, thus creating an inequality that is not convincing from the Federal Council's point of view. This does not mean that the question of a state referendum cannot or should not be discussed in principle. However, an expansion of the mandatory state treaty referendum should be considered. This would need to be done comprehensively and systematically. That is not the case here. Such a fundamental discussion should consider the state treaty referendum as a whole and be conducted independently of the three bilateral agreements. The Compass Initiative, however, links this fundamental question with the bilateral negotiations. Furthermore, the initiative contains a transitional provision that is unclearly worded and therefore jeopardizes legal certainty. It does not specify how the Federal Council and Parliament should implement the initiative's requirements in concrete terms . Instead of clarity, it creates new uncertainties and problems. For these reasons, the Federal Council concludes that the Compass Initiative does not provide a suitable basis for an evaluation of the State Treaty referendum . L'initiative Boussol établit un lien entre la question fondamentale du référendum en matière de trait internation et 3. Elle contained en outre une disposition transitoire formulée de manière claire. Elle constitution de ce fait une menace pour la sécurité du droit. L'initiative ne dit pas comment le conseil fédéral et le parlement devrait concrètement la mettre envre loin de clarifier les choses cré de new incertitudes et de new problèmes. Pour all ces raisons, the federal conseil considère que l'initiative boussol n'est pas une base valable pour l'extension en matière de trait internation. The initial Bussol però lega le question di fondi ai bilaterali 3. Inoltre contains a disposizione transitoria poco chiara. The initiative does not guarantee the certification of the directive, but does not come from the Federal Consiglio and the Parliament, which should be concretized, in consideration of the fare chiarezza è fonte di incertezza e di new problems. Ecco perché il Consiglio federale è convinto che the initiativa Bussolò non si presti e a estendere il referendum obbligatorio in materia di trattati internazionali. Grazie mille. Thank you very much, Mr. Federal Councillor. The initiators of Compass Europe have also already spoken out. They criticize the Federal Council for delaying this message until the deadline , thus postponing the initiative out of concern about its chances. What is your answer to that, Mr. Federal Councillor? Thank you for your question. The Federal Council has not delayed anything. He delivered his message on time, within the deadlines. This deadline generally always applies. He never treated this initiative any differently than any other popular initiative. Mr. von Mat, Mr. Jans, the initiators say that a Year of the People would have broad support if a majority of the cantons also said yes to these new treaties. That's precisely why we're launching this initiative. What do you say to this argument of broader support? This is about everything, thank you very much for this question as well. This concerns very important institutional questions. These should not be taken lightly. The Federal Council has always said that there is no constitutional basis in the bilateral agreements for the mandatory referendum, i.e., for the double sea issue . If you want to regulate this anew, as I have tried to illustrate, then you have to look at it broadly, then you have to discuss the state treaty referendum in principle and not deal with this individual case of bilateral agreements, as this initiative does. She overlooks important points and is therefore unsuitable to lead this fundamental discussion . I would like to say something more about more democracy through the double referendum. If the smaller cantons are given more weight , meaning their votes are counted more, this is not necessarily good for democracy; clear rules are needed. In which cases is federalism, i.e., the system of cantons, necessary and important? And there we have concrete, um, guidelines, and in which cases it is about the majority of the population ultimately being decisive through an optional referendum that is no longer subject to the state. But I can tell you that in cities or large cantons that lose weight through a cantonal parliament , this naturally causes dissatisfaction when suddenly double the amount is demanded, even though the constitution does not provide for this. So, this is a very difficult balancing act that needs to be done carefully, examined on a case-by-case basis according to constitutional requirements. This initiative will not achieve that, and certainly not better. Madame Gabrette questioned the double majority and was discussed at the parliamentary commissions at this moment. When the September rent comes, voilà, the question also arises from these accords with the European Union, which is also available in the world of the rent with this communication, it is a pleasure for you, for the federal council of remettre une couche et de dire non, You can't see this in the cadre of discussion in parliament. The Federal Council does not see the message on this initiative as a new argument against, um, the mandatory referendum in connection with the bilateral agreements. The Federal Council has already clearly explained there why it is against it. There is no constitutional basis, and in this sense the position of the Federal Council has not changed. From my point of view, no new argument has been added . Ms. SCK, Mr. Federal Councillor, you briefly mentioned that the transitional provision creates ambiguities for the vote on the Bilateral Agreements 3. Wouldn't the solution, as the initiators suggest, be a simple one: ensure that this initiative is voted on first, and only then is the decision made on the Bilateral Agreements 3 . You obviously can't bring this up in parliament, but would you recommend it to him? That's exactly as they said, that's the parliament that will now decide the next steps. It is important for the Federal Council, and this is also for the protection of the population, that it quickly puts parliamentary decisions to a vote and that it puts initiatives to a vote within the existing deadlines . And therefore, the Federal Council no longer has any influence on this order . He doesn't make any recommendations either. However, the Federal Council negotiated for many years to achieve these three bilateral agreements. He has done an enormous amount of work to stabilize the relationship between Switzerland and the EU. In uncertain times, clarifying the relationship with the EU is considered extremely important, strategically important for Switzerland . Therefore, he naturally wants the package to be adopted quickly and he wants to ratify it with the EU as soon as possible. Perhaps one additional piece of information, which seems interesting to me, is that if it is indeed ratified before the Compass Initiative comes to a vote, then you must know that part of the existing bilateral agreements will have been replaced by this ratification. The bilateral 1 agreements are replaced by the bilateral 3 agreements, and the bilateral 2 agreements are then essentially attached to them . They won't be directly replaced, but there's a risk that they too will be gone in a while, or that after a year both will no longer be valid in this form. And if the initiative were to be accepted now, as I have said, it is unclear how one would have to proceed on the one hand, and on the other hand it is actually no longer possible to return to bilateral agreements 1 and 2. So, because the current situation will no longer apply in relation to the EU. So the idea that if the Compass Initiative is subsequently adopted, we will then be back where we are today, is wrong. That's not acceptable. Therefore, it would be incredibly complicated for Parliament to figure out how to implement this new provision, which states that the bilateral agreements should actually be subject to a double referendum. Mr. Schwarzinbach. Yes, it sounds as if most of the uncertainties would only exist if the Compass initiative comes to a vote after the three bilateral agreements. And they rightly said that the deadlines were met, but they were also fully utilized. So how do you justify not having moved forward here to clear up all these uncertainties right from the start? Thank you very much. This is the same question that has already been asked. I'll say it again, we haven't done anything different here than with other popular initiatives. We need this time to properly examine what this means. We need to write a clean, um, legally sound [ahem] message, and that requires many discussions and clarifications. Mr. Schöll might be able to describe this process again. I get the impression they were working under considerable time pressure and delivered this message in time. Thank you very much, Mr. Federal Councillor. Madam Vice Chancellor, I can only summarize briefly. This question of procedure is initially determined by the submission of the initiative, and then the Federal Council has the ball in its court, and the Federal Law on Political Rights precisely stipulates how this will proceed for months. This means that a decision on the direction of the policy by the Federal Council is necessary within the first three months. That means, uh, initiative rejection or acceptable rejection with or without a counter-proposal, and then nine months remain if the Federal Council does not prepare a counter-proposal, and these are the institutional procedures to which the Federal Council is bound. The next player to decide on the timeline, starting today, is Parliament. Thank you , fog. Point de critique à l'initiative, c'est que elle vise essentialement les accords with l'Europe, les new accords with l'Europe, mais qu'elle a aussi des conséquences pour d'autres futurs accords. Est-ce que vous arriveriez à donner quelques exemples d'accords internationaux que la Suisse a fait ces 20 30 dernières années qui si l'initiative était avait été en vigueur depuis 30 ans mettons aurait dû être approuvé par le people et les cantons pour Donner un petit peu une idée de quel type de d'accord serait nouveau désormais soumis à this new obligation that is very difficult Because I said it, a new term would be inserted into the constitution, that in narrowly limited subject areas only legal provisions could be adopted and we do n't know what exactly is meant by that. Therefore, we cannot retrospectively say which contracts would have been affected. Parliament would first have to define what that means. Narrowly limited subject area peut-être peut-être compléter le critère essentiel de l'initiative, c'est donc les traitsés qui prévoi la reprise de disposition législative importante. Donc the faudrait rétroactivement analyzer quels sont les donc quel type de d'accord prevoit une telle reprise. He is part of the European Union. On said that with the donc les accords qu'on a par example in matière d'association Chengen et du blanc on prevoit déjà la reprise reprise dynamique. Donc il s'agirait là dans cas d'application mais on also par exemple le traité de d'échange d'information en matière fiscalee with les États-Unis qui prevoit une reprise automatique de certaines dispositions. Serait ce type d'accord dans le champ d' application initiative prevoit généralise ou pas We looked at that too, that shouldn't be a problem. Free trade agreements that we have concluded in the past do not actually include dynamic legal adoption, but I would also like to add that we have not looked at this systematically, but in general terms we assume that this would not be an argument against this Compass initiative. Free trade agreements that are currently under negotiation would probably not be affected. Mr. Müller, um, that the three bilateral agreements can be ratified while this initiative is still pending. There are absolutely no legal reservations or problems. Do I understand that correctly? Yes, the initiative, we have an existing constitution, that would have to be changed first. But Mr. Schön, exactly. I believe the central question is really that of order. Uh, and if you want to start where things are clear, so if the vote is first on Compass and then on the three bilateral agreements, then it's clear that the three bilateral agreements are subject to a mandatory referendum on state treaties by the people and the cantons. [snorting] If the vote is first on the three bilateral agreements in an optional referendum and only then on Compass, uh, then you fall into these questions that the initiative puts under this transitional provision, and that's where the difficulties lie. And the questions that need to be discussed there are, conceptually, the initiative actually wants this package to be voted on again in a mandatory referendum. And for that, one simply has to know that in order for a new vote to be held, the three bilateral agreements, which may already be ratified , have already been accepted by the people and approved by parliament, must first be repealed. And the difficulty with this transitional provision is that the text does not use a word like cancellation or invalidation or rescheduling of a referendum. And because the cancellation of a referendum is an extremely serious intervention in existing democratic processes, such a consequence would have to be clearly expressed in this initiative, and it is n't, and that's where we're left with all the questions that then arise. The Federal Council concludes that if the vote on the bilateral agreements is held first, the three bilateral agreements come into force, and then the vote on Compass is held, this vote, which would determine the acceptance of the Compass initiative, would have no impact on the legal validity and existence of the three bilateral agreements. However, this would trigger a political limbo, because one would then have to ask what the legislature must now do with this constitutional mandate? One would have to ask, in particular, if a new vote is to be held, what exactly is it about? What is the approval decision? What would need to be re-voted on? And here the initiative, the initiative text, raises many questions that the current law, the current constitution and the precedents in parliament have not answered. And it would be presumptuous, I would make myself vulnerable, if I were to present a legal analysis of this today . That is a difficulty we have with this initiative text. Thank you very much, Mr. Papaceller. Mr. Konser Federal, uh, there is a principle that it's not possible to do this retroactively. So, the applicable law applies; this retroactive clause does not contradict other provisions of the Swiss legal system, which state that laws cannot be applied retroactively. In criminal law, if a new law comes into effect in January and I committed my crime in December, then I will be convicted according to the law from December and not the new one. Perhaps I can say that retroactive effects and popular initiatives are a topic that is relatively widely known. Um, you can go back to the 90s, there was the Rotenturm initiative against the military training area. There have also been various other examples in recent years . For example, there was the inheritance tax initiative in the 1910s. There was also the FTP F35 initiative, which raised the question of what would happen if the F35s had already been procured and a "Stop F35" initiative were subsequently adopted? Uh, and here's a practice of parliament. Uh, so there can be a repercussion. It must be reasonable. It must not interfere with well-earned rights. But in principle you are right that the law states that provisions should not have a retroactive effect . Mr. Schlapbach, there is also the, um, the parliamentary initiative, which also proposes one more stand for bilateral enrollment. Has the Federal Council actually defined a position on this , but there are those who are for it and those who are against it? They mean the proposal submitted to the Council of States. Exactly. Yes, the Federal Council answered this question yesterday and clearly rejected it. Is there another question? Or are we at the end? M stitch. Thank you. Um, they have now voiced clear criticism of the transitional provision and also that it would be hardly implementable, and yet, if you look at the message, there is always at the beginning of this chapter validity and there is also the sentence that its realization in the event of acceptance is not factually impossible from the outset. So, this is perhaps a bit of a contradiction to what has been said, if one looks at the overall impression, um, how do you resolve this contradiction and how close was this initiative to being declared valid and not invalid? Mr. Schöll is probably best placed to answer that. I believe he had to deal with this question very intensively. The right of initiative is a wonderful aspect of Swiss constitutional democracy, and it would be far from our intention to criticize the text of an initiative . There is no doubt about the validity of the initiative. That's what you said, and that's what the message says. Uh, we were merely pointing out that the intended effect, particularly with regard to this transitional provision, may not be in line with the intentions of the initiators. Thank you very much. And in general, perhaps the Federal Council should really take the initiative in this matter and allow a public debate and a vote, rather than stifling it in advance by declaring it invalid. So, generally speaking, I believe the policy of the Federal Council and the Federal Office of Justice would only consider implementing this initiative in cases where it is absolutely impossible under any circumstances. Only then would he put it into practice . Thanks to. One more question, Mrs. Lotte. Uh, just one more question: there were also talks with the EU about this initiative. Was this legal uncertainty and the consequences of its adoption discussed there, and what was the EU's feedback? That's a question we didn't discuss in that way in the Federal Council . That's not the main focus here. Therefore, I cannot give you the answer as to how the EU would react. But let me try to say it again: if the initiative were to be adopted after ratification , we would be in a very difficult limbo, also in our relationship with the EU, because we could no longer simply revert to the Bilateral Agreements 1 and 2. Wouldn't we have to renegotiate something ? Yes, we would have to consider that the relationship between Switzerland and the EU will be put to the test if the initiative were accepted after ratification. Seor Papacella, it is already evident in the commissions that they are practicing delaying tactics for these bilateral agreements. Well, you could see that on Monday. Do you believe that Parliament, or rather a majority of Parliament, might be working towards ensuring that the vote on this initiative takes place before the bilateral agreements? That's a good question, which unfortunately I cannot answer. That is in the hands of parliament. nom en français vient pas mais est-ce que vous estimeriez que la situation de la Suisse serait plus compliquée dans le cas d'un non au new accords avec l'Europe avec les anciens accords bilatéraux qui rester à changer ou dans la situation d'un oui d'abord au new Accords suivi d'unitive bous est que là ce parle nouveaux accord What's worse? I could also at best speculate about what the Federal Council's attitude is. These bilateral treaties are important to the Federal Council. He negotiated well, he reached good compromises. He wants to conclude the agreement and therefore he is in favor of the bilateral agreements and against the Compass Initiative. Cette fois-ci, c'est la fin. You will remember your attention, your interest and you will have a good job, a good day. Thank you.