Under the guise of economic pragmatism, some politicians are today attempting to portray a profound transformation of our system as insignificant. Behind reassuring words and promises of stability lies a very different reality: a gradual, silent legal integration that bypasses democratic debate. The recent example of Simon Michel's statements is the perfect illustration of this \u2013 and deserves to be examined without filter.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Misty Cleaver, 7 April 2026<\/em><\/p>\n In the debate on Swiss\u2013EU relations, some speeches aim less to inform than to reassure. This is the case with the statements by Simon Michel, FDP National Councillor and member of the extended committee of economiesuisse.<\/p>\n Presented as educational, his assertions nevertheless do not stand up to rigorous legal and economic analysis. Point-by-point demonstration.<\/p>\n Simon Michel states that the agreements would merely transpose international commitments into Swiss law, which would remain sovereign.<\/p>\n This reading is incomplete.<\/p>\n The mechanisms under discussion rely precisely on a Dynamic repercussion of EU law<\/strong> in the areas covered. This implies:<\/p>\n Swiss law thus becomes an instrument of enforcement, rather than an autonomous source of decision.<\/p>\n Stating that European regulations do not apply to Switzerland is to ignore how bilateral agreements function.<\/p>\n In practice:<\/p>\n Above all, the case law of the Federal Tribunal is clear: in its 2015 ruling, it confirmed the primacy of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons over domestic law in the event of conflict.<\/p>\n In other words, even when \u201ctranslated\u201d, Swiss law defers to the international agreement.<\/p>\n Simon Michel claims that only exporting companies would be subject to European standards.<\/p>\n This distinction is artificial.<\/p>\n In an interconnected economy like that of Switzerland:<\/p>\n An SME that doesn't comply with dominant standards is simply sidelined, even if it doesn't sell directly to the EU.<\/p>\n The idea of two coexisting normative systems - one for the Swiss market and one for exports - is not practical for industrial use.<\/p>\n Maintaining dual production lines is:<\/p>\n Companies are therefore adopting standardisation, often aligned with European standards, which are becoming the de facto benchmark.<\/p>\n Even products intended for third-party markets (USA, Asia) are often designed according to these standards for optimisation reasons.<\/p>\n Simon Michel suggests that the scope of the agreements would be limited.<\/p>\n However, the mechanisms envisioned include:<\/p>\n This potentially opens up a wide scope for:<\/p>\n This is not a static framework, but an evolving system.<\/p>\n The heart of the matter remains elusive.<\/p>\n The dynamic review of the law implies:<\/p>\n This alters the institutional balance by reducing direct control over the rule-making process.<\/p>\n Simon Michel's remarks are part of a strategy to normalise a process that goes far beyond a simple technical agreement.<\/p>\n The established facts show otherwise:<\/p>\n The debate deserves better than simplification.<\/p>\n He demands a clear presentation of the mechanisms at play, so that everyone fully understands the scope of the choices that will be put before the people.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sous couvert de pragmatisme \u00e9conomique, certains responsables politiques tentent aujourd\u2019hui de faire passer pour anodine une transformation profonde de notre syst\u00e8me. Derri\u00e8re les mots rassurants et les promesses de stabilit\u00e9 se cache une r\u00e9alit\u00e9 bien diff\u00e9rente : une int\u00e9gration juridique progressive, silencieuse, qui \u00e9chappe au d\u00e9bat d\u00e9mocratique. L\u2019exemple r\u00e9cent des prises de position de Simon […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1053,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1052","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politique-interieure","category-ue"],"yoast_head":"\n1. \u00abOnly Swiss law applies\u00bb: a misleading presentation<\/h3>\n
\n
2. \u00abEU regulations don't apply to us\u00bb: legally incorrect<\/h3>\n
\n
3. \u00abLocal SMEs are not affected\u00bb: a reasoning detached from reality<\/h3>\n
\n
4. \u00abEU standards only apply to exports\u00bb: economically unsustainable<\/h3>\n
\n
5. \u00abLimited scope\u00bb: a minimisation of the stakes<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
6. The Democratic Blind Spot<\/h3>\n
\n
Conclusion \u2014 Behind the reassuring discourse, a structuring reality<\/h3>\n
\n