The pulse increases. This afternoon, the Federal Council informed of its Decisions to the framework agreement and termination the Initiative of the SVP. The latter he rejects. This is very clear. Therefore, focusing all the on the framework agreement with the EU.

Since then, the VIEWS made public, the state Secretariat for economic Affairs (Seco), shall suddenly critical to the free movement of persons agreement with the EU, is now the Initiative in the visor. The phones are running hot.

The Department of Economic Affairs (eaer) to which the Seco, informed this morning via Twitter: The VIEW-article based on a “old confidential document”. The Secretariat of state had not changed its opinion on the free movement of persons agreement (FMA).

it is reported As a VIEW, it was said in the application: “The differences with the WBF (GS, Seco) will remain” – that is, with the General Secretariat of the Department and with the state Secretariat for economic Affairs. And further: “there is disagreement in particular on the question of whether an omission of the FZAs, as well as the rest of the Bilateral agreements I and the introduction of a restrictive licensing system had also to workers from the EU/Efta States for Switzerland, negative economic consequences.”

How old?

Old? According to the VIEW information, the departments were informed yesterday evening that at the request of the economic Department – in brackets Seco in the Federal Council the request of Minister of justice Karin Keller-Sutter (55, FDP), an adaptation of the from the VIEWS published in paragraph’ve made.

Old? The said Amendment was only yesterday implemented at noon on a Thursday. At 11.34 am it was, it is said, from administrative circles.

Old? According to the VIEWS of the research, the Seco had asked only on Wednesday to the state Secretariat for Migration (SEM) of the correction.

What is adjusted?

but The key question is: to Doubt the Seco, in its opinion, the economic Benefits of free movement of persons is in fact so strong, as it is clear from the original Version of Keller-Sutter’s request? Or the SEM has interpreted the statements incorrectly?

A note of the updated Version of the Keller-Sutter’s request provides: The “Seco” is gone in the Passage quoted above from the clip. The state Secretariat for economy, it is important, therefore, to be not with the attitude that in the opinion of the free movement of persons agreement and by insiders as a FZA-critical will be referred to.

in order for Seco to the distance to the own Department of Economic Affairs.

According to the VIEWS of the research Parmelins guide crew involved in the work of the Offices. It is assumed that this has led Seco to a different coloring in the assessment of the agreement on the free movement. With the reaction of the SEM noted Seco and the Department of Economic Affairs of Guy Parmelin (59, SVP) that you hyped-up.