Mattea Meyer in an interview: “With the SVP there will never be a constructive European policy”

Mattea Meyer: Remains constructive.

Union boss Pierre-Yves Maillard is pushing for a 13th AHV pension. At the same time, he threatens to block negotiations with the EU. Which PYM do you prefer?

Both times are essentially about social justice. Because people have enough money in their wallets. Here in Switzerland, but also across the border. In that sense I like both.

Let’s talk about Europe first. The Federal Council’s negotiating mandate is “narrow-minded and unambitious,” your party says. What bothers you about it?

I would like to say in advance: we support the Federal Council in starting negotiations and will be involved in finding solutions. However, the mandate does not provide answers to the major challenges of our time: fair governance, lack of corporate responsibility, climate crisis. We can only solve these problems together with the EU, but the Federal Council is ignoring them.

But Mr Maillard insists on the expense scheme for posted employees. Isn’t that also petty?

Every professional knows: dumping is possible if the costs are too low. When Polish craftsmen come to Switzerland, they would have to earn a salary that is common here, but they could receive a much lower salary for overnight stays, namely a Polish expense allowance. That would be indirect wage dumping at the expense of local companies. Nobody wants that.

And yet the problem seems solvable. The same applies in the EU: equal pay for equal work in the same place.

Yes, this can be solved if the political will is there. One thing is certain: our wage protection is inviolable. We will combat any deterioration of the situation for employees. Opening and integration can only take place in combination with accompanying measures.

Another controversial point is the liberalization of rail transport – also not an insurmountable obstacle. Does that justify the blocking attitude of the unions?

It’s not a blockage. It is the effort to find solutions that are in the interest of the population and public services. Regarding rail transport: With our SBB we have an excellent public infrastructure with a well-functioning regular timetable. Should we liberalize this and thereby endanger it? We already get annoyed when the train leaves five minutes late…

Is it worth risking the entire agreement for this?

If the right wants to abuse the negotiating mandate to destroy public services and worsen working conditions, we will defend against it. The past has clearly shown that we can only make progress in European policy if trade unions and citizens work together. There will never be a constructive European policy with the SVP. At some point the FDP and the Center must also realize that this is only possible with us.

Just as with the failure of the framework agreement, when ideological positions were taken on wage protection, the SP is in danger of becoming the gravedigger of the EU negotiations.

The framework agreement was buried by FDP federal councilor Ignazio Cassis, who was responsible for it. Fortunately, we are one step further today. The negotiations are going in the right direction. But the mandate should never be merely an end in itself. It should always serve people, improve their lives – or at least not make them worse.

When will the mandate be given a chance?

A majority in the population will only be found if there is clarity about how wages should be protected in Switzerland. This is mandatory.

Would joining the EU still be the best option for you?

We can only find answers to the major challenges at European level. I would rather sit at the negotiating table and have a say in the decision-making process than stand on the sidelines and just have to understand things.

However, at the moment virtually no one here wants to become a member of the EU.

It is of course clear to me that accession to the EU is not currently under discussion. That is why we try to exert influence where there is an opportunity to do so, especially with the negotiating mandate. What is often lost in this discussion: Switzerland is located in the heart of Europe. Many companies depend on export activities with the EU, our culture and our research location are European in nature. European politics shape our daily lives.

Change of subject: Have you chilled the champagne yet for voting on Sunday?

I don’t really like drinking champagne. Still, I certainly hope that we will have something to celebrate.

The chances of this happening are good. Currently, around 70 percent are in favor of a 13th AHV pension, which we will vote on on March 3. Even ordinary people participate.

That doesn’t surprise me. The AHV is the most important and reliable pension provision for so many people. A social achievement that has no party colors. Middle-class voters also see what’s left in their wallets at the end of the month. Rising rents and healthcare premiums, higher food prices: an entire monthly pension has recently been lost. To compensate for this, a 13th AHV pension is required.

The majority of retirees are financially well off, the rest receive a supplementary benefit. What’s wrong with this system?

The AHV is not social assistance! It is insurance for all of us: everyone contributes, everyone receives a pension. It is true that many retirees are doing well. You may have a house and belongings and you can enjoy your retirement without any worries. But there are others too: people who have worked all their lives and now have to hand in every franc twice. I get emails from grandparents who can no longer afford to take their grandchildren to the zoo. This is something that touches me: everyone who has worked all their life deserves to be able to grow old without any worries.

If the vote is ‘yes’, additional funding will likely be needed from 2030 onwards.

The question of whether we can afford this only arises if we want to give something back to people. But she failed to show up when it came to saving Credit Suisse last year with hundreds of billions in government guarantees.

The fact is that it would be more expensive. Who should pay for that?

Slandering AHV’s finances is systematic. However, social work is on a stable basis. The Federal Council writes that surpluses will be achieved by 2030. If the AHV ever needs additional financing, politicians will find a good solution.

Exactly: what could it look like?

The initiative does not make any concrete proposals in this area. An increase in the wage rate would certainly be feasible. UBS boss Sergio Ermotti would then have to pay 4,400 francs more per month, but his AHV would have a limit. A part-time employee would pay 20 francs more per month, but would get back 200 francs more per month later in life.

Working people will be able to afford less.

The AHV is financed from solidarity. The income millionaire also contributes every franc of his wages to the social security system. Nine out of ten people receive more AHV than they ever paid.

Yet almost no one understands that millionaires should also benefit from this.

This right-wing watering can argument is hypocritical. It never comes when it comes to tax breaks that millionaires don’t need either.

If the proposal is adopted, it will be even more difficult for Elisabeth Baume-Schneider to make the AHV suitable for the future. Why are you doing this to your federal councilor?

I am quite sure that Elisabeth Baume-Schneider understands very well why her SP is committed to a social Switzerland. We have a middle class majority in government who may see things differently. It makes economic sense to compensate for the loss of purchasing power of large parts of the population. I am surprised that the bourgeois Federal Council does not understand this and does nothing about rising rents or health insurance premiums. Ultimately, he lets people down like this.

The common people are not sitting completely still. With its pension initiative, the FDP wants to secure the financing of social services…

The pension initiative leads to a retirement age of 67 years. Everyone knows that those who can afford to retire early are bankers and insurance industry people. Even in the future, when you are 62, you will continue to say: “Hello everyone, I am now enjoying my retirement.” The woman at the Migros cash register, the childcare worker and you as a journalist will have to work longer. Furthermore, those who work harder emotionally and physically tend to die sooner. This cannot be reconciled with my sense of justice.

Only they contest the vote, Cédric Wermuth will not return from his break until the end of February. Do you know where he is now?

Yes, the whole family really enjoys the free time – that’s why I won’t tell you where and how to reach him (laughs).