Swiss Elections & Politics (Next election 2019)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The Swiss referendum on expelling foreign criminals (and by criminals, it counts things like speeding) is using an old favourite poster:

[DavidB.]

A friend of mine was in Bern last week (#feelthebern) and took this picture:

[ZuWo]

First federal projection by SRF (Swiss Broadcast Corporation):

Deportation initiative: 41% yes, 59% no

Ban on financial speculation with foodstuffs: 40% yes, 60% no

Tax breaks for married couples initiative: 50% yes, 50% no

Construction of a second road tunnel through the Central Swiss Alps: 57% yes, 43% no

[DavidB.]

Why did people vote against the deportation initiative? Are they tired of the SVP pushing this issue?

[Tender Branson]

Why did people vote against the deportation initiative? Are they tired of the SVP pushing this issue?

Because it was really an extreme measure: The proposal asked to deport criminal foreigners even if their crime was only minimal, such as stealing something or even lesser crimes. On top of that, the initiative IIRC even called for an entry-ban into Switzerland of at least 20 years for these deported low-crime foreigners.

OK, deport some criminal who raped a woman and got 5 years in jail. Fine. At least he won't crowd the local prison and be fed through with our taxpayer money.

But deport some foreigner because he got a speeding ticket and didn't pay it ? Nahhhh ...

The Swiss voters are too common-sense for this extreme nonsense.

[Tender Branson]

Deportation of criminal foreigners initiative map (YES %, by district):

Click right for big version.

[ZuWo]

Why did people vote against the deportation initiative? Are they tired of the SVP pushing this issue?

 The short answer: The SVP was beaten at their own game.

The usual way immigration issues are debated in Switzerland is as follows: The SVP manages to provoke, exaggerate and create some hysteria. This time around, however, the anti-SVP campaign did just that in the last few weeks of the campaign by focusing their message and, yes, spreading effective misinformation.

To some of you who posted in this thread, please don't take this the wrong way. I appreciate all of your input on Switzerland-related affairs as I don't have a lot of the time to post here but part of that effective spread of misinformation by the no-campaign has become visible in this very thread. The main reason for this, of course, is that foreign journalists don't normally know a lot about Switzerland. I can't blame them. We have a weird political system and just aren't that important on a global level.
The notion, for instance, that foreigners would have been deported for mere speeding has no basis in fact whatsoever. The text of the initiative stated that a person could only be deported if he/she were handed down a verdict by a court. Clearly, speeding tickets and similar negligible offences would not have been dealt with in court. Also, to be deported for something minor a foreigner would have had to commit repeated offences (at least twice). Shortly, the idea that huge numbers of people would have been deported for petty misdemeanour is factually incorrect.

Another reason why the initiative failed, and perhaps the most important one, is that the SVP wanted to establish a mechanism of "automatic deportation". If a foreigner had committed (a) certain offence(s), the judge in question would have had to deport him/her upon handing down a verdict without the option of taking into consideration the defendant's individual situation. So even if a foreigner had spent all of his/her life in Switzerland and lacked ties to his/her country of origin, he/she would have been deported. Many considered this a fundamental change of our legal system and a severe infringement of the separation of powers and therefore opposed the initiative.

Finally, tough deportation laws are going to take effect this year anyway as the majority of Swiss citizens approved a constitutional clause on that front in 2010 and granted parliament a time frame of five years to pass such legislation.

[MaxQue]

Why did people vote against the deportation initiative? Are they tired of the SVP pushing this issue?

Because deporting foreign criminals is already law, due to a previous SVP initiative.

Swiss Parliament watered it down, through. They wanted to bring to their previous proposal (where any crime, including speeding on an highway = deportation).

That's a bit extreme.

[DavidB.]

Many thanks, ZuWo! (and the others)

[Zanas]

Swiss news that are not utterly despicable? Yes, please!

Frankly, I'm glad this initiative didn't pass. I wouldn't want all of our French sportsmen and women to get back to France as soon as they got a speeding ticket with their Lamborghini in Montreux...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

And good news , the Christian Democrats attempt to sneakily ban gay marriage narrowly fails!

[DavidB.]

And good news , the Christian Democrats attempt to sneakily ban gay marriage narrowly fails!

That's great indeed.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Referendums in June, as per wiki:

A popular initiative for a basic income.

A popular initiative for fair transport financing.

A popular initiative for public service.

A referendum on amendments to the medically assisted reproduction law.

A referendum on amendments to the federal asylum law.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Results in this Sunday. Lot of attention being paid to the BI which will almost certainly fail.

[Tender Branson]

According to the exit polls, the basic income referendum fails 20-80.

What a surprise ...

[DavidB.]

i LOVE this country!

[parochial boy]

So it is a bit late in the day, but I made a map of how the communes of Geneva voted at the 2015 federal election.

Red is the PS (SDP)
Blue in the PLR (FDP)
Dark Green is the UDC (SVP)
Light Green is the Greens
Orange is the PDC (CVP)



In sum, pretty clear division between the solid red built up centre and the blue suburbs.

The red is mostly working class areas, as well as the City of Geneva and its southern neigbour Carouge, which are both pretty bohemian (by Swiss standards).

The blue areas are wealthy, detached villa land, including the uber rich lakeside suburbs.

The splodges where UDC won are largely more rural (again, by Geneva standards), except for the northerly most one, Meyrin, which is a working class-ish satellite town.

I have no idea what is with the area of PDC strength in the south of the Canton. Geneva is majority Catholic these days, but that is entirely down to immigrants, who are not the PDC's traditional consituency by any means.

The Green victory in Presinge, in the east is pretty strange as well, as it is by and large a wealthy dorma village. I initally put it down to a statistical anomaly, as they won by the equivalent of less than three ballots, but they won last time round as well; and only just lost in Puplinge, the commune immediately to thhe south-west.

[parochial boy]

Three more referenda concluded today -

The initiative to raise AVS (Social Security) was rejected by 59.5%

The "green economy" initiative was rejected by 64%

While the snoopers charter was passed by 65%

So unsurprising results, but interesting in that, once again, the language divide reared its head on the green economy and AVS votes.

4 French speaking cantons voted to raise AVS; and, while only Geneva passed the Green economy, French speaking Switzerland as whole voted well to the left of the German speaking areas.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There will be a referendum on phasing out nuclear power on the 27th.

[parochial boy]

Opinion polling suggests it could be close, but I think No will win.

There is a classic pattern in referenda where the anti-"establishment" position (i.e. the position that the Federal Council opposes) leads in the earlier polls, which narrow as the referendum closes in, and the establishment position ends up winning. This has been the case here, Yes was on 57% earlier in November, and at 48% the last poll I saw.

The question was last asked in 1999, and 33% voted to end nuclear power. I suspect it will be close this time.

[parochial boy]

No wins, with 54.2% of the vote.

4 French speaking cantons voted yes, as did both Basels. So nothing unusual, as this is another issue that Romandie consistently votes to the left on.

In somewhat encouraging news though, the inhabitants of the Canton of Zug rejected 40 million francsof spending cuts, meaning that the disgusting little "Fiscal Paradise"is going to have to... raise taxes!

[parochial boy]

Three referenda take place on the 12th of February:

1. To facilitate the naturalisation of third generation immigrants.

2. Creates a special fund for for development of roads

3. To accept the RIE III (Réforme de l’imposition des enterprises) on company taxation reform.

The RIE III reforms are the most interesting one here, as it has come about as a result of OECD and EU pressure for Switzerland to clear up its game with regards to corporate taxes.

At the moment, certain Companies that are registered in Switzerland (for example, holding companies, or which generate virtually all of their revenue abroad) are allowed to pay much lower corporate tax rates than those earning in Switzerland (rates vary Canton to Canton, but using Geneva as an example, the corporate tax rate is around 24%, but closer to 11% for these "special" companies.

The RIE III reforms abolish this double standard. However, opposition to the reforms has come form the left (the Socialists ran the petition to set up the referendum), on the basis of the fact that the reforms in effect amount to a massive tax cut. Corporate tax rates across the board will fall to around 12% (depending on Canton), and potentially even further thanks to a number of tax deductions (for instant a Patent Box, R&D, increased capital allowances); and larger companies will benefit disproportionately. This will basically amount to a decrease in tax revenues of about CHF 1-3 billion, depending on which levels of government we are talking about.

Not much polling about so far , and in any case, polling for referenda is normally useless, but it looks like the naturalisations and roads will pass very comfortably. RIE III is either 15% ahead, or 3% behind depending on the poll, but I expect it will pass comfortably in the end.

A point of (minor) constitutional interest is that the first two of these referenda are "mandatory" referenda, as they relate to constitutional changes which must be subject to a referendum. The tax reforms is an "optional" referendum as it relates to a law that was passed, but which was challenged by the Socialist Party, who obtained 50,000 signatures in a referendum.

The third type of referendum is a "popular initiative", which could be basically any questions for which a petition obtains 100,000 signatures.

[DavidB.]

What's the first referendum exactly about?

[parochial boy]

It makes it easier for third generation immigrants to go through the naturalisation process.

At the moment, there are two ways of becoming Swiss, the Standard way and the facilitated way. The difference between the two basically comes down to the fact that the standard naturalisation process is longer and more expensive, and there are more hoops to go through.

At the moment, the facilitated process is I think mostly used by spouses/partners, and the new law would extend this process to third generation immigrants who fill certain conditions.

[Tender Branson]

The European Human Rights Court ruled that Swiss Muslim girls have to attend swimming classes with boys (but they can wear burkinis and dress/undress in separate rooms of course), ruling that secularism and integration into society trumps any die-hard religious beliefs:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/world/europe/swiss-muslim-girls-must-attend-swim-classes-with-boys-court-says.html

Good.