Gerhard Pfister has been shown to facilitate the decision of the Federal court for a repetition of the vote on the marriage penalty. It is also "to restore confidence in the Federal Council," declared the CVP-President. He is now calling for a re-vote, a new message of the Federal Council, and a discussion in Parliament.
A mere repetition of the vote for him was not an Option, said Pfister to the news Agency Keystone SDA on Wednesday. Because the Federal Council had presented "materially false Figures as a Basis". As a result, the Parliament and the voting public would have to be decided on the basis of false facts.
the political aspect is this: Because the Federal court decided that the information was so blatantly wrong that it is absolutely necessary, the trust, and to repeat the vote. Otherwise, it would be in a future vote, the credibility of the Federal Council and the voting booklet fight had been undermined.
As the result of the vote was down, with 50.8 percent of the extremely scarce and only at the booths more of a failure, justified a repetition. It is also suspect as to be absurd that certain members of Parliament and the voting public would have decided differently if they had known the correct Figures.
In a Communiqué, called for the CVP , "that the Federal Council will seek a meeting with the initiative Committee and the party, before he decides on his further course of action. The decision of the Federal court was "a decision in favor of the political rights of the Swiss people".
Because the Swiss had been deceived by the Federal Council. In the future, the procedures and processes in the Federal administration and the Federal Council would have to be improved so that, in the run-up to referendums, no false information, the extent of which would be disseminated, it was said.
SP responds positively to
The Basel SP-Nationalrat Beat Jans welcomes the cancellation of the vote on the CVP Initiative to abolish the marriage penalty. He think it is right, if the vote would be repeated. Because, also, be assumed that the Numbers voted, and would have adapted to it.
"It's pushing that to the voting population of false information," said Jans, who had then fought in the bipartisan no Committee of the popular initiative "For marriage and family against the marriage penalty". The question is, how much of this 450'000 affected married couples paid more, and how big were the losses for the Federal government.
So such questions could be cleared up, would it also be good if Parliament could deal with the template. Because "in the end we vote on a new message," said Jans.
the state of the debate in the Parliament play a role. This new information must have the population to be able to decide. Because of the Definition of marriage in the initiative's text, the SP will not accept the template, but sure. (fal/sda)
Created: 10.04.2019, 13:51 PM