On 21 September the National Council as first council began with the debate on the amendment of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals FNA including the order to implement the by people and cantons adopted constitutional provision concerning the management of immigration. That, what was presented to the Swiss people was a cleverly needled tragedy. That had nothing to do with democracy, in any case.
The Swiss people certainly doesn’t want to join the EU, especially not the NATO. Since the memorable No to the EWR- membership on 6 December 1992 everyone clearly knows that, and that hasn’t changed since then. Every Swiss person knows that joining the EU means an Off of the Swiss modell model. Because of this unique model – direct democracy, federalism, communal autonomy, neutrality – Switzerland is stable and sustainable in any case. The strong position of the SME (small and medium-sized enterprises) in the economic region, the deep national debt, the strong franc are the impact of the Swiss model. Behind that you can find the deep-rooted public safety: We are the decisionmakers in this country, we ensure healthy communities, we maintain and strengthen the economic position of the dual vocational training and the identification of workers with their SME operations, by the debt brake imported through people we ensure that our expanding cantonal and federal authorities still have at least one barrier. In every opinion survey we maintain with over 90 per cent the everlasting armed neutrality.
The opponents are not resting. Politicians and all administrative departments in the Confederation and cantons have taken up the fight against the Swiss model and set the course: The small state Switzerland is to be integrated into the EU and NATO and thereby dissolved. Even before 1992, but especially since, they have begun to saw to the pillars: drug policy, education reforms, Bergier report – pure poison arrows from outside, but without a strong 5th column inside they would have had little effect. Decomposition of the communal autonomy by the steady weakening of the communes and the strengthening and centralizing of administrations (EU regional policy, mergers, nature parks, metropolitan areas), penetration of the EU-aligned federal administration in every corner of the sovereign cantons (health, primary school, education generally), replacement of the people’s militia army by so-called “Durchdiener” (towards professional army) and undermining of neutrality by an always closer “cooperation” with NATO. Everything passing the people, a steady coup from above against the people.
Direct democracy is the crux for strategists who let themselves integrate from outside in an ever closer network – because of fame addiction? Because they are blackmailed? Because they hope to control the global economy in the “global village” in a better way? But: Up to now nobody can pass the referenda in Switzerland. So you have to attack democracy from above and dismantle it gradually. By the Curriculum 21 one can accelerate the planned strategy: persons who cannot read and write, are lost for direct democracy: The whole growing generations shall no longer be able to carry the state as mature citizens – an inhuman nastiness without equal.
In order to make it a bit faster, more and more referenda simply don’t get implemented. The more than seven-hour lasting National Council debate on 21 September to the implementation of Article 121a of the Federal Constitution (immigration control) is a demonstration of the subversive forces against whom a strong response will be necessary.
So answered CVP President and National Councillor Gerhard Pfister to the question of Roger Köppel in the “Weltwoche” of 8 September 2016.
With the coalition of the big bourgeois parties (SVP, FDP, CVP), the National Council would have carried off a “unilateral protective clause” and a “residents precedence”, worthy of its name, and met the people’s will, which is codified in the Federal Constitution. In the great show on 21 September in the National Council, this was not the case, which all Councillors already knew before. Because in the preparatory Political Institutions Committee SPK-NR (PIC-NC) the forces were already bundled: all other parties against the SVP. Accordingly, the scenery was constructed in the Council.
Roger Köppel: “On 29 April you said in an interview that there would be a consensus among the bourgeois parties, that one is going to enforce the migration management independently, provided there is no consensual agreement with the EU. Now any autonomy was relinquished. Switzerland must ask the EU for permission at any measure that goes beyond the better use of domestic potential. Why crumbled the bourgeois consensus?”
Gerhard Pfister: “It dissolved. It existed until about one week before the Commission meeting. The FDP intimated that maximum numbers would be absolutely out of question for them, not even in a weakened form. The FDP began to fixate on individual words. At once there were rigid fronts.”
Hence, the strategists managed the National Council Debate: not the Swiss way! The Commission proposals were not submitted by the Commission President, Heinz Brand, SVP, but by vice Kurt Fluri, FDP, who had already presented himself in the Commission as an advocate of the EU. The request for rejection of National Councillor Adrian Amstutz, SVP BE Bern (see box), in which the breach of the constitution all along the line was denounced, was rejected with all votes against the SVP. The FDP had decided three-line whip – an extremely outlandish process in the Swiss consensus democracy! Accordingly, some FDP National Councillors dared merely to abstain from voting, there were three of them in the vote on the rejection of request Amstutz (Thierry Burkart, FDP AG Argovia, Benoît Genecand, FDP GE Geneva and Hanspeter Portmann, FDP ZH Zurich). As a protest against the earlier agreed front against the implementation of the people’s will, the SVP National Councillors had agreed to become involved with many questions concerning the request Amstutz. So they brought the Council’s President Christa Markwalder, BE Bern, (who had campaigned for joining the EU since ever) to the verge of rage: “Come to your question!” … “The question!”
As the only FDP National Councillor had Hanspeter Portmann, FDP ZH Zurich, dared to make a request, which tried to lay the control still in Swiss hands. “Can the Joint Committee (Art. 14 para. 2 FZA Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons AFMP) not agree, the Federal Council requests from the Federal Assembly remedies to unilateral implementation.” (Art.17d para.4bis draft AuG Foreign Nationals Act FNA)
A similar request from Gerhard Pfister, CVP ZG Zug:
“The Federal Council decides in consultation with the Cantons on the remedial measures and their submission to the Joint Committee (Art.14 para.2 FZA AFMP). If within 60 days of the request, Switzerland has no agreement, the Federal Council may decide temporary remedial measures.”
Both requests were rejected but only slightly: In addition to the SVP Councillors most CVP councillors and some of the FDP voted in favour.
Until an independent regulation of immigration is finally finished, all water is under the bridge. Hopefully the Council of States knows better than the large chamber, what it has to do. Otherwise there is still the referendum law.
But the fact remains that the majority of the National Councillors simply has refused to implement the people’s will on last Wednesday. If you consider that the termination of the bilateral agreements with Switzerland from the EU point of view is not up for discussion, as Jean-Claude Juncker has admitted on 19 September in Zurich – finally the EU would have to lose a lot more than we do! – already the question is before us, what made our “elected representatives” to want to leave Switzerland to a ramshackle construct from which the other states try to escape, before being sucked down to the last penny. •
The bill 16.027 is to be rejected to the Political Institutions Commitee (PIC-N) connected with the mandate to constitutionally embellish it according to the decree of people and cantons from 9 Februar 2014. The elaborated proposal by PIC-N for the implementation of Art. 121a of the Federal Constitution as well as the appropriate interim regulations is clearly unconstitutional. The constitutional obligation by people and cantons reads:
1 Switzerland shall control the immigration of foreign nationals autonomously.
2 The number of residence permits for foreign nationals in Switzerland shall be restricted by annual quantitative limits
The quantitative limits apply to all permits issued under legislation on foreign nationals, including those related to asylum matters.
The right to permanent residence, family reunification and social benefits may be restricted.
3 The annual quantitative limits and quotas for foreign nationals in gainful employment must be determined according to Switzerland’s general economic interests, while giving priority to Swiss citizens;
the limits and quotas must include cross-border commuters.
The decisive criteria for granting residence permits are primarily a application from an employer,
ability to integrate, and adequate, independent means of subsistence.
4 No international agreements may be concluded that breach this Article.
– unfulfilled (Croatia-minute)!
11 Transitional provision to Art. 121a (Control of immigration)
1 International agreements that contradict Article 121a must be renegotiated and amended within three years of its adoption by the people and the cantons.
(Translation Current Concerns)
The initiative committee “Yes to HarmoS exit” along with a sizeable portion of voters requested the government and the cantonal board of education to put children’s interests at the heart of school policy. The “Yes” vote cast by St. Gallen voters for a HarmoS remain is not a free pass to promote more damaging school reforms.
The government as well as the media have put a lot of effort into discrediting the initiative for the HarmoS exit so far. Surely, the massive media (almost) monopoly of HarmoS supporters has contributed significantly to the remain within a HarmoS concordat. We would like to thank all citizens that supported our initiative, and who, despite a massive media campaign voted “Yes” to a HarmoS exit.
The government now will be judged on whether it keeps its promise and is prepared to put the child’s interest at the heart of its policy even with a HarmoS concordat, whether it is prepared to strengthen the teacher-child relationship and to give teachers the freedom to choose their own teaching methods. Also, after a lot of unrest, the repeatedly given promises to have the flurry of reforms subside and calm restored within school politics, now have to be put in effect.
Moreover, HarmoS must no longer be used as a lever for ideological restructuring of the schools. The voters said “Yes” to a sensible coordination of the cantonal schools, but not to a radical change of elementary school. Steps taken towards self-organised learning are to be stopped.
Maths, reading and writing in German are to receive proper emphasis as a foundation once more. The most valuable aspect of elementary school, the student body that is being led and shaped by a responsible teacher, has to be preserved.
We will keep going, we will continue to oppose non-sensical reforms and take action for a strong elementary school St. Gallen.
Unsere Website verwendet Cookies, damit wir die Page fortlaufend verbessern und Ihnen ein optimiertes Besucher-Erlebnis ermöglichen können. Wenn Sie auf dieser Webseite weiterlesen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies einverstanden.
Weitere Informationen zu Cookies finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
Wenn Sie das Setzen von Cookies z.B. durch Google Analytics unterbinden möchten, können Sie dies mithilfe dieses Browser Add-Ons einrichten.