Federal referendum 19 May
The text of the referendum on the adoption of the EU Weapons Directive gives us the opportunity to make ourselves very concretely aware of what we would have to put up with in case of an Institutional Framework Agreement: obedient nodding to the adoption of decrees of all kinds to the gusto of the Brussels bureaucracy – or occasionally a rejection to the sender through a referendum vote, with consequences also at the whim of EU leaders. We can still say “no”!
“Do you want to adopt the Federal Decree of 28 September 2018 on the approval and implementation of the exchange of information between Switzerland and the EU concerning the transposition of the Directive (EU) 2017/853, amending the EU Weapons Directive (further development of the Schengen acquis)?”
We are no underlings! If our voting rights are to be reduced to such referendums, we could abolish direct democracy altogether. On the other hand, those for whom the preservation of the direct democratic and self-determined Swiss model is an indispensable value, must now offer decisive resistance. Against the EU Weapons Directive and the Institutional Framework Agreement. An accordingly derogatory tone against the so-called myth of the armed confederate can be found in the Swiss mainstream media. Their only goal: to make Switzerland compatible with EU and NATO.
“Swiss model versus EU bureaucracy – EU weapons directive is in conflict with the freedom of the citizen.” Under this title you can find some references to the content of the Weapons Directive in Current Concerns No. 2 of 16 January 2018. The most important thing: The EU bureaucracy is completely opposed to the liberal Swiss idea of ownership of weapons as a fundamental right and duty of the citizen since ancient times. And the fight against terrorism as a peg to hang the whole thing on, is absurd: Those who want to prevent terrorist attacks, should campaign for the immediate end of NATO wars. With centralised data collections on respectable citizens, Brussels gains the total control of the European population – including the Swiss – it is not a means against armed criminals.
By the way, on 13 February 2011, the Swiss voters clearly rejected the initiative “For Protection Against Armed Violence” and thus the disarmament of the citizen, with 56.3 per cent and 20 out of 26 cantons against. In the voting booklet by the Federal Council, this “no” of the sovereign is only mentioned on the page of the referendum committee.
Whether it would be in the interest of Brussels to terminate the cooperation with Switzerland in terms of border police and asylum after a no-vote of the people on 19 May, especially considering Switzerland’s personal and financial contributions to the protection of the EU’s external borders, is an open question. If, contrary to expectation, Switzerland were excluded, the Federal Council could, as it has already proven several times, provide a suitable “Plan B”.
Schengen/Dublin only work in good-weather periods anyway: At the latest since Angela Merkel’s invitation of the whole world to Germany in 2015, several EU countries have controlled their borders again. Recently Germany, Austria, France and Denmark – contrary to the fruitless warnings of the European Commission – decided to extend their border controls for half a year until the fall of 2019 (“Deutschland und Dänemark verlängern Grenzkontrollen”. “Neue Zürcher Zeitung”, 13 April 2019). •
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.