Last week, the National Council twice rejected the urgent loans in favor of the National Bank and UBS to take over Credit Suisse. Since the extraordinary session, there has been a discussion as to whether this decision could have legal consequences for the agreement. Today, the government made it clear again that the no of the grand chamber will not change anything. The Bundesrat can ultimately do what it wants, says Bundeshaus editor Philipp Burkhardt.
SRF News: How does the government justify its position?
Philipp Burkhardt: Essentially, the Federal Council says that if it now had to reverse the commitments it made to UBS or the National Bank on March 19, it would “significantly impair” its ability to act in times of crisis. Incidentally, Parliament itself assumed in the extraordinary session that a no would have no effect.
Where is the sticking point in the assessment, where do opinions differ?
There are constitutional and administrative lawyers who support the position of the Federal Council. Others say that Parliament’s no was actually a no, and that is why at least the contract with UBS for a guarantee of nine billion francs, which does not yet exist, should not be signed.
The sticking point is probably the question of whether the Federal Council actually made binding commitments to UBS on the Sunday when the takeover of CS was sealed, from which it is now impossible to get out. Today, the Federal Council brings a new line of argument: It says that the emergency ordinance issued that Sunday was already a binding obligation towards UBS. However, UBS is not mentioned by name in this ordinance. The ordinance also only says that the Federal Council “can” grant a guarantee. Reading a binding obligation out of this seems to me to be on shaky ground.
The Federal Council has now confirmed its position. Is that off the table?
In theory, it is now up to Parliament again. The National Council’s State Political Committee is meeting tomorrow and wants to discuss the situation. In fact, the Federal Council can ultimately do what it wants. Parliament cannot prevent him from signing a guarantee contract.
For the future, the Federal Council and Parliament will have to ask themselves what will happen if Parliament explicitly tightens the law in 2010 and creates the possibility for itself to subsequently decide in an extraordinary session on billions of euros that the Federal Council has spoken about via emergency law can – if then a no should in fact never have any consequences. Hours of discussion about billions in loans just for the gallery are unlikely to increase the taxpayers’ confidence in the state organs. After all, they would ultimately have to pay the billions.
Rebecca Villiger conducted the interview.