Switching the Swiss compass back on

I have just completed the “smartvote” questionnaire with 75 questions on my political standpoint and ended up with a majority of candidates who hardly correspond to my political position. Because of the fact that I as a citizen don’t build my opinion based on a left-right-scheme but ponder depending on the subject, I just get any candidates chosen for me … therefore my recommendation: don’t let yourself get derailed by a voting barometer operating with “artificial intelligence”.
  For us, the voters, there are some urgent questions at hand on 22 October: Which foreign and security policies are the best for our country? Which values are vital for a prosperous coexistence? Which measures are the most urgent for a good education of our youth? What should be included into our policy out of democratic, ethical and social reasons? Which candidates are providing the most satisfying answers? (Most of the current parliamentarians will stand again in autumn.) Looking into some of the affairs made in the past autumnal session might be helpful to some voters. By the way: By entering the correspondent affair number on Google, you may see every vote and vote results.

Make the Swiss army able to act
again instead of sacrificing neutrality

Once again, the compass is drifting away from the Swiss course at the Federal Parliament Building, which would be a foreign policy that preserves our neutrality and thus protects our citizens. Both houses of parliament have decided to muster out 25 Leopard tanks from the army stock to deliver them to Germany at the behest of German ministers Habeck and Pistorius, as a so-called replacement for the tanks that Germany sent to Ukraine. A foul trick to circumvent the contract duty of Germany not to forward Swiss army goods to other countries. Of driving forces of this deal, Maja Riniker (FDP AG), easily claimed on the National Council on 14 June that Switzerland could thereby “contribute to the European security architecture without jeopardising its own safety”. And chief of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) Viola Amherd twisted the definition of neutrality in a spine-crawling manner at the Council of States on 26 September: “This is possible by the laws of neutrality, and by neutrality policies, it is in the interest of Switzerland from the perspective of the Federal Council and the majority of the National Council.”¹
  The opposition in both Councils defended themselves against this unneutral and unlawful deal, many found that Switzerland would be wiser to re-establish its defence capabilities instead of sending tanks into foreign warzones. National Council member Hans-Peter Portmann (FDP ZH) [addressing a Council colleague from the Green Party]: “Dear Madam and colleague, your party is against weapons, because weapons kill people. Now you are voting for mustering out 25 tanks. You know that these tanks will go to Germany, then they will go to Ukraine, and then people will be killed by them.” Council of States member Alex Kuprecht (SVP SZ): “But yet, we don’t have a guarantee that not one of these tanks will end up in Ukraine. Therefore, I am of the conviction that we should try to refurbish our material, strengthen our manpower, reconstruct our defensive capabilities and build up our perseverance before we put tanks out of service and sell them.”
  The National Council has accepted this unconstitutional deal on 14 June with 132 Yes to 59 No votes. No to tank shipping to Germany, apart from the entire SVP faction, was also voted by the following free democratics: Jaqueline De Quattro (VD), Marcel Dobler (SG), Matthias Samuel Jauslin (AG), Hans-Peter Portmann (ZH), Christian Wasserfallen (BE) as well as the green liberal Martin Bäumle (ZH).
  On 26 September the Council of States unsurprisingly joined the National Council with 25 Yes to 15 No votes. (The No votes cannot be matched to the exact statements for or against the tank deal because it was linked with another question.)
  Everyone who is of the opinion that, in this highly precarious situation, grovelling in front of the war alliance NATO would buy more safety for Switzerland does himself a favour to remember the beneficent effect of the everlasting armed neutrality of our country during both of the global conflagrations of the twentieth century. Beneficent for Switzerland and the whole world.

G7 Task Force:
National Council struggles,
Council of States stands strong

The Green Party has brought forward a motion at the National Council, after which Switzerland should join the “Task Force Repo” (“Russian Elites, Proxies and Oligarchs”) and search for Russian wealth under the command of the G7.² This undertaking which stands in contradiction to neutrality, the state of law and the sovereignty of Switzerland was averted for now by rejecting the attempt back to the respective committee to clarify certain points by the majority of the Council.
  A clear No to the ideas of the green would surely have been preferable. But despite formal subtleties, the free-democratic faction and its postponement of the motion at least put a central question into the room: “Would Switzerland […] keep full autonomy when it came to sanctions or would there be an automatic mechanism?” If one keeps in mind how much autonomy Switzerland has left after being pushed by Brussels or rather Washington to accept their sanctions, namely zero, this question is not that hard to answer.
  The Greens however weren’t pleased at all with the postponement, having targeted the Swiss financial centre within their motions’ justification: “As administrator of Russian wealth and as main location of Russian commodity trade, Switzerland carries a major responsibility for the effectiveness of measures which could lead to a swift ending of the destructive offensive war against Ukraine.” Besides the absurd goal of the motion: That the greens are being used by Wallstreet and the London City by acting this way is not something they even realised.
  Two positive remarks: On the one hand: the members of FDP, SVP and the Central Party can easily form a majority in the National Council, if they stand together just for once: the motion was rejected to the committee with 101 Yes to 77 No votes. Let us hope that said commission seeks for advice at the Federal Office of Justice, which (at least up to now) does not let itself be pushed from the right path regarding this question.
  On the other hand, the Federal Council fortunately pleaded for the refusal of the attempt: Switzerland does not need a task force, neither a national nor an international one, says the Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (EAER).
  Fortunately, not all Federal Councillors are cast in the same mould: Chief of EAER Guy Parmelin obviously is not impressed by arrogant US ambassadors and foreign ministers, clearly in contrast to his colleague at the DDPS.

Narrow victory of the
EU turbos for the EEA track

The bourgeois parties in the National Council were unable to unite against the motion of EMS President Eric Nussbaumer (SP BL). (The European Movement Switzerland EMS is a think tank that has been striving for Switzerland’s accession to the EU since 1998). The motion proposers want to instruct the Federal Council, in addition to talks with Brussels on the continuation of the bilateral path, to initiate “exploratory” talks with the EEA Council on a possible rapprochement of Switzerland to the EEA.³ Nussbaumer’s reasoning: “The Federal Council is only pursuing one strategic option. [...] No one knows whether this will ever succeed. No one knows either whether negotiations will succeed for Switzerland.” That is why a second track has to be tackled.
  Federal Councillor Guy Parmelin is also responsible for this issue. He points to the recently published report “Current State of Swiss-EU Relations”, according to which “the bilateral path remains the most suitable instrument for ensuring relations with the European Union with a comprehensive balance of interests”. Joining the EEA, on the other hand, “would allow little to no specific solutions and exceptions tailor-made for Switzerland – just think of state aid. Switzerland’s political room for manoeuvre would therefore be more restricted.” Federal Councillor Parmelin therefore recommends that the motion be rejected.
  94 National Councillors were in favour of this motion, 92 against, with 4 abstentions – isn’t that annoying? Instead of letting the EU issue simmer as quietly as possible, a new barrel is being opened with fanfare that has already been “explored” – as the EU turbos around Eric Nussbaumer know very well. Now the motion goes to the Council of States – so there is still hope.
  Let’s end the selection from the autumn session with two positive decisions by the parliament, or rather the Council of States.

With less education at the PH
in order to solve the teacher shortage?

The Committee for Science, Education and Culture of the National Council (SECC-N) wanted to introduce easier access to the University of Teacher Education (PH) for professionals with a vocational baccalaureate in order to combat the shortage of teachers.⁴ In view of today’s narrow education for future teachers at PHs as well as the pedagogically misguided training to become a coach instead of a teacher, it is to be welcomed that the Council of States in the autumn session at least prevented a reduction in the previous education required for admission to PHs.
  Today, a baccalaureate from a grammar school can be admitted to a university of teacher education without having to take an examination, whereas graduates of a vocational apprenticeship with a vocational baccalaureate are required to take an entrance examination. The speaker of the committee in the National Council, Simon Stadler (Central Party UR), who has taken this latter path himself, calls the current regulation “a disregard for the vocational baccalaureate”, which is “no longer appropriate in times of a shortage of skilled workers and teachers”. In the debate, the three presuppositions of this statement, which are intertwined here, were taken apart and carefully answered in both councils. Some opinions from the abundance.

• On good prior education: Matthias Michel (FDP ZG), Speaker of the Committee in the Council of States: “Article 61a of our Federal Constitution [...] calls for permeability in the Swiss education system, which is also the basic concern of the motion. However, permeability does not mean ‘free floating’, there is no totally free access to universities, regardless of prior education. So, in this specific case, it does not mean that a vocational baccalaureate allows the same free access to a university of teacher education as a baccalaureate from a grammar school. You have to read the whole article: The same article of the Federal Constitution also calls for educational quality. In this case, quality means that PH students must have the necessary backpack to enter the teaching profession. It is precisely the subjects that are missing in a vocational baccalaureate education that are important tools for the teaching profession.”
• On the “disregard for the vocational baccalaureate”: Councillor of States Mathilde Crevoisier Crelier (SP JU): “Vocational baccalaureate holders actually have to obtain a one-year additional diploma in order to enter a PH. Conversely, a holder of a baccalaureate from a grammar school has to do a one-year internship before he can go to a university of applied sciences, for example. [...] It is not a declassification of professional skills to say that the vocational baccalaureate does not provide the sufficient academic background.”
• On addressing the teacher shortage: National Councillor Simone de Montmollin (FDP GE): “Addressing the teacher shortage requires addressing the real problems, such as part-time work, which is quite high in the teaching profession. Another would be the question of why teachers sometimes leave their jobs only a few years after graduation. These questions need to be answered before irreversible measures are considered […].” Note: It is up to the cantons to urgently tackle this permanent issue.

In the National Council, the motion was clearly adopted with 122 Yes to 41 No, with supporters and opponents in almost all parties and with many abstentions (23) – perhaps a sign that quite a few parliamentarians have not really concerned themselves with the state of teacher training and the primary schools. In the Council of States, the proposal was narrowly rejected, with 21 No to 19 Yes across all parties, with 2 abstentions. With the rejection by the Second Council, the motion is finally off the table. This is a small consolation for all those who fight for a good primary school and a good luck for our children, who in any case receive too little of the basics for their lives at primary school. Every teacher who has a good and comprehensive education can be of great importance.

No second
National Day for Switzerland

On 4 May 2023, the National Council had approved a motion to introduce a bank holiday to commemorate the founding of the Swiss federal state on 12 September 1848, when the Federal Constitution came into force (with 94 votes in favour, 82 against and 6 abstentions). On 27 September, the Council of States rejected a second Swiss bank holiday. There was no opposition here, so the small chamber voted according to the old custom, without digitally recording the individual votes (recorded in the minutes of the meeting: “rejected”.) With the No of the Council of States as the second chamber, the proposal is off the table.⁵
  The 1 August has been Switzerland’s bank holidays since 1891, 600 years after 1291. Because the celebration takes place in the evening, the 1 August was long a working day. It was introduced as a bank holiday after the adoption of a popular initiative on 26 September 1993. The Council of States rejected the second public holiday mainly because of the Swiss people’s attachment to the celebration of the Letter of Confederation of 1291.
  Thomas Minder (SVP SH): “The Federal Constitution of 12 September 1848 is undoubtedly a historical milestone in the development of Switzerland, but Switzerland was not founded in 1848, but in 1291.”
  Hans Stöckli (SP BE): “You cannot introduce a bank holiday from the top down: The people themselves must want to dedicate a second day to the founding of our country. I can’t imagine that 12 September will evoke much emotion and cohesion in our population to create this new day.” (Stöckli’s vote contained this cohesion: he spoke Italian, French and German).
  Philippe Bauer (FDP NE): “I would like to emphasise what Mr Stöckli has just said. For me, national cohesion is important. This nation of wills that we boast of belonging to has managed to create a national symbol around the 1 August. [...] this is the case even for the Vaudois – which I am not – because Gilles, one of their great poets, sang ‘Nos ancêtres [ancestors] les Waldstätten’. This cohesion was created around 1 August.”  •

¹  Army Message 2023 (23.025). Emphasis mw
² otion 22.3451. “Switzerland’s participation in the multinational task force Repo for the implementation of economic sanctions against Russia”.
³ Motion 21.4457. “Initiation of exploratory talks with the EEA Council”.
⁴ SECC-N. Motion 22.4268. “Exam-free access with the vocational baccalaureate to teacher training colleges for training as a primary school teacher”.
⁵ Motion 21.4075. “A holiday for democracy”.