Talk:Switzerland–European Union relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union Mid‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Switzerland High‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On October 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved from Switzerland–European Union relations to European Union–Switzerland relations. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

"Yes to Europe!" initiative

I think I read on wikipedia - hope not in a previous version of this article, that the Swiss government while supportive of more EU ties, advised people to reject this referendum due to some technical matter? If so, the mention, given to imply overwhelming rejection of membership, is misleading. Aryah (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Switzerland rejected EU laws?

It is written "changes in EU law will only apply after a joint bilateral commission decides so in consensus". Has Switzerland ever rejected EU laws through this commission? It is said that Norway has a similar possibiliy but has not used it since the EU can cancel the EEA treaty. The EU can also cancel the Switzerland treaties (Guillotine Clause). --BIL (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia (country)–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article?

Any else think that there should be an article titled "Accession of Switzerland to the European Union", I know, they might not be intrested right now, but neither is Iceland. Charles Essie (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there is no ongoing process in Switzerland to apply for membership. Iceland has applied and is a candidate country and does have a negotiation process active, even if very little is happening right now.--BIL (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is happening right now as far as Iceland moving forward with negotiations to join the EU is concerned. The 2017 GE there ushered in a coalition whose members all oppose UE membership. Boscaswell talk 00:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links

>> EU warns Switzerland all treaties will be reviewed after anti-immigration vote (Lihaas (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Switzerland–European Union relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss banking access to the EU single market for [financial] services.

I read somewhere but can't find it again that, because CH (like EFTA) does not have access to the single market for services - especially that for financial services - the major Swiss banks have to have a second 'base' in an EU member state and be subject to that state's banking regulation and reserve requirements, if they wish to sell to EU customers. Can anyone supply a citation? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EU cohesion contribution

I suggest that the article should include some of the information from http://www.swissinfo.ch/directdemocracy/swiss-set-to-apply-payments-to-new-eu-members/6327578 - https://www.eda.admin.ch/erweiterungsbeitrag/en/home/the-swiss-contribution/legal-basis/federal-law.html - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/deea20080618_32/deea20080618_32EN.pdf Alekksandr (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Switzerland–European Union relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100213205515/http://www.eda.admin.ch:80/eda/fr/home/reps/eur/vnld/bilnie.html to http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/fr/home/reps/eur/vnld/bilnie.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in "Trade" section

In "Trade" section we read "Switzerland accounts for 5.2% of the EU's imports" which does not make sense to me because Switzerland is not part of the EU. I think there is a typo and "imports" should read "exports", which would make sense.

Veterinary annex

John Maynard Friedman, first of all great username for someone working on articles related to Milton Keynes. Regarding the veterinary annex: the main problem is that the bilateral agreements have many many annexes, and this one is of no particular notability in the CHF-EU relations. A dedicated sub-section in the § Treaties section is pretty difficult to justify imo. JBchrch talk 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch: Thanks, the name is a reference to a fairly common misunderstanding of the etymology of MK, though I've not seen it now for quite some time.

In any other circumstances, I would agree totally that the section is undue and support its removal. The problem is that just now it is topical because of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

I think I can see a compromise: the current article Common Veterinary Area is an obvious WP:AFD candidate since right now it is unashamedly WP:ADVOCACY, with zero content that actually relates to its overt purpose. So how about we copy/paste (with attribution of course) the material that is currently in this article to that article? Then we just need a residual hook here to link to it (and update the NIP article accordingly). I think we would need something more here than just a See Also entry though. Any suggestions? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall assume that silence signifies assent and open a wp:section move, see next. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the silence John Maynard Friedman. I support the move proposal and will think of an appropriate hook I can propose to you. JBchrch talk 12:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the easiest place for the hook is Bilateral I agreements (signed 1999, in effect 1 June 2002): Agricultural products, the difficult bit it is to find a succinct and proportionate wording for it. (I don't think that See Also would be appropriate). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section move proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to move the section John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the sections Veterinary annex be moved to Common Veterinary Area. The section is too detailed for this article (ref discussion above), whereas the intended target is seriously deficient. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per nom and discussion above. JBchrch talk 12:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Comparisons" table : remove 'Ethnic groups'

I propose to remove this line as it is unhelpful, mostly uncited, and just attracts POV edits. Is there any good reason why it should stay? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss President and Vice President

The Swiss President and Vice President are outdated. Luke99108 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]