Introduction
There are times when a country has to face the truth.
The Unilateral III Agreements are not a technical dossier or a simple administrative development: they represent the greatest legal abdication in Swiss history. For the first time, the Confederation would agree to automatically adopt foreign law, to have it interpreted by a jurisdiction that is not its own, and to make its domestic policy conditional on the decisions of a bloc to which it does not belong.
In this context, the positions taken by Denis Pittet, Chairman of the Fondation Genève Place Financière, a former executive at Lombard Odier and a well-known figure in Geneva's high finance sector, are no coincidence: they are in line with the view of a section of the financial centre that believes - wrongly - that European regulatory integration will guarantee the stability of its activities. We must therefore dismantle, point by point, this vision, which is legally false, economically risky and politically dangerous.
1 “The Bilaterals III are a continuation of the strategic partnership initiated in 1999.”
This is not true, and Denis Pittet knows it.
The 1999 agreements were based on three intangible pillars:
-
no dynamic recovery of the law,
-
no European jurisdiction,
-
no institutional integration.
On the contrary, the Unilateral III Agreements introduce :
-
the compulsory adoption of European law and its developments,
-
arbitration dependent on the interpretation of the CJEU,
-
an automatic update mechanism.
As Hans-Rudolf Merz reminded us:
«The European acquis is like a spiral: once you're in, there's no way out.»
Pittet presents a historical break as a reassuring continuity. This is misleading.
2. “Strengthening ties with the EU is a geopolitical necessity.”
Pittet is confusing two realities:
→ economic cooperation
→ legal integration
Nobody disputes the importance of the EU as a trading partner.
But Switzerland's prosperity is not based on normative submission - it's based on our differentiation.
The truly strategic agreement remains :
→ the 1972 Free Trade Agreement, approved by the people.
There's no need to go through thousands of pages of European law to do business.
3. “This is not EU membership.”
Technically true. Politically untrue.
The Unilateral III Agreements are a functional membership without political rights :
-
we take up the standards,
-
we are subject to case law,
-
we apply the penalties,
-
no seat, no vote, no veto.
As Professor Daniel Thürer points out:
«Integration without representation is more dangerous than formal membership.»
That's exactly what we're doing.
4. “There is no automatic alignment.”
Not true.
The mechanism provides for :
-
compulsory adaptations,
-
retaliatory measures in the event of refusal,
-
arbitration that must comply with the logic of the CJEU.
In other words:
→ alignment is automatic in practice.
5. “The arbitration tribunal will be composed of equal numbers of members.”
Only in appearance.
In any dispute involving European law, the arbitrator will have to rely on the interpretation...
→ of the CJEU.
Conclusion:
-
joint arbitration in form,
-
unilateral subordination in substance.
6. “Agreements are essential for access to the European market”.”
This is factually incorrect.
Key points:
-
Access is guaranteed by the 1972 Free Trade Agreement, which is still in force,
-
Switzerland exports more to the EU than it imports,
-
80 % of exports need no dynamic recovery.
And for finance - Denis Pittet's area of expertise:
The financial sector is not even not included in Unilateral Agreements III.
The idea of massive relocations is a political fantasy, not an economic reality.
7. “Regulatory proportionality must be maintained”.”
But this is precisely what the EU cannot offer.
European law is :
-
massive,
-
centralised,
-
standardised,
-
designed for 450 million people.
Switzerland is based on :
-
proportionality,
-
a variety of business models,
-
direct democracy,
-
flexibility.
Importing European regulation means destroying what makes Geneva, Zurich and Lugano so strong.
8. “Switzerland must remain competitive with Dubai and Singapore”.”
Exactly.
But the answer cannot be: no more European law.
The only coherent strategy is :
→ financial sovereignty,
→ neutrality,
→ autonomous system of penalties,
→ internal stability.
As Ludwig von Mises said :
«A country remains stable only if it masters its own laws.»
Conclusion - The Unilateral III Agreements are a historic strategic mistake
Denis Pittet defends a reassuring but mistaken vision: that stability will come from Brussels.
The reality is the opposite:
→ Swiss stability is the fruit of our independence, not our alignment.
The Unilateral III Agreements are neither bilateral nor strategic:
-
these are subordination agreements,
-
gradual regulatory take-up,
-
a loss of sovereignty without a popular mandate.
Switzerland has never grown by aligning itself.
It has prospered by asserting itself.
It's time to say it again.