Commentary: Parliament's bickering over EU treaties is disappointing

Institutional disputes are currently dominating the European debate within the Swiss Parliament, creating a climate of distrust. The core of the conflict revolves around the handling of EU treaties and the application of a 'double majority' voting system, a process that has led to significant procedural wrangling.

The Council of States, Switzerland's upper house, has opted to delay its review of the EU treaties until the autumn session. This decision, reached through complex procedural maneuvers, grants the 'double majority' faction more time to solidify and present its arguments. The postponement is seen as a tactical success for those advocating for this specific voting mechanism.

This delay is welcomed by some, as recent weeks have starkly illustrated the deep divisions within Parliament regarding Europe. Both sides have employed methods, described by some as questionable tactics, that exceed typical parliamentary conduct. A notable point of contention involves which parliamentary commission, the pro-European Foreign Policy Commission or the more skeptical State Policy Commission, should take the lead on the 'double majority' issue in the National Council.

Accusations have surfaced that the National Council's office initially refused to provide the Council of States with a legal assessment on the disputed competence question. Such power politics, critics argue, should not become standard practice and harms the overall political culture. The ongoing institutional conflicts are viewed as unconvincing, especially given the importance of the EU treaties. Parliamentarians are expected to act with seriousness and responsibility, yet the current atmosphere is characterized by intense infighting rather than sober deliberation. Postponing the 'double majority' debate aims to cool the heated atmosphere and allow for more reasoned discussion.