Five obvious weaknesses in the proposal for a new agreement between Switzerland and the EU being made public to date are particularly striking. One, the bizarre fact is to be criticised that there is still no concise official justification explaining the need for the agreement. Specifically, what problems make the agreement indispensable? Two, it goes without saying that individual issues can be resolved within the framework of the current agreements and WTO rules. This does not require a treaty comprising at least 1,500 pages, which, due to its length, is likely to reach only a very small readership. Already when the EEA agreement was proposed, I noticed that even federal parliamentarians had not read the document, or had not read it carefully. Presumably, voters are now once again to be deterred from studying the proposal by the ruse of the overwhelming amount of reading required and persuaded to approve it by purely propagandistic means (something similar happened with the long and difficult-to-read Energy Act (Energiegesetz) of 2017). Three, one reads about fears of impending EU countermeasures if our country rejects the agreement. This weak attitude is unworthy of a successful country and can only be explained by a lack of self-confidence. Four, the legal recourse proposed in the agreement in the event of disagreements is unacceptable to us because it ultimately gives the EU’s interests a dominant position. An agreement between equal partners would look different in this respect. Five, the federal government has published a study that is by no means plausible, which is supposed to prove that the Swiss population would have to accept considerable financial disadvantages in case of disapproval of the proposed treaty (in the case of the EEA proposal, there was similar, almost panic-stricken propaganda about disadvantages, which soon turned out to be fantasy). – Final remark: It is fundamentally problematic for our democracy when proposals are submitted to the people that do not contain an objective summary free of propaganda elements.
Hanspeter Bornhauser, Bedano (TI), Switzerland
As this EU treaty affects the rights of the people, it requires a vote by a majority of the cantons. With its decision, the Federal Council is undermining direct democracy. It is handing us over to EU judges who are happy to impose fines running into billions, as their coffers are empty. To conceal the real problems, the EU leadership, deeply in debt, is autocratically switching to a war economy. In for a penny, in for a pound. Is that what we want? With its decision, the Federal Council is betraying our country, our hard-won popular rights and our sovereignty. Our freedom is being curtailed and the economy is being gagged by EU regulations. A reversal is urgently needed. Where are the representatives of the people who, with a cool head, are pursuing a genuine and honest policy of neutrality that is worthy of the name?
Marianne Bürkli, Bronschhofen (SG), Switzerland
I would like to express my gratitude for the various articles on the attack on Iran, which is contrary to international law. It is becoming increasingly clear that the mindset of warmongering politicians is dangerous for the entire world population.
In April 2017, I was able to take part in a three-week trip through Iran, which prompted me to read a lot about the country’s history. Iran, or Persia, is one of the cradles of our civilisation and has an impressive culture. Anyone who only sees Ayatollahs does not know the history and culture of the country. Oil is one of Iran’s great riches.
On the flight to Tehran, there was a Siemens employee on board. She had many files in her luggage. After the Stuxnet virus attack on the uranium enrichment plant in Natanz in 2010, Iran no longer trusted digital communication with the company. This is also part of the background to the attack on Iran.
In the book “Making Africa Visible on the Globe” (2016), a collection of essays by the recently deceased Kenyan author Ngugi wa Thiong’o, there is an essay entitled ‘The Club of Nuclear-Armed Club-Wielders’. In it, Ngugi wa Thiong’o quotes the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, J. Robert Oppenheimer: “I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds” (from the Bhagavadgita). Later, the Kenyan author concludes: “A handful of nations now have the capacity to destroy the world several times over with atomic bombs. They form the club of atomic butchers.” This club draws the world’s attention to nations that do not possess nuclear weapons. “As if the intention to possess nuclear weapons were more dangerous than their actual possession.”
This essay by Ngugi wa Thiong’o clearly shows how thinking is deliberately clouded in Western countries. If only the words of politicians were imbued with the idea of peace!
Current Concerns are so important to me because they give readers the courage to believe that peaceful coexistence between people is possible.
Margret Kleine-Pauli, Zurich
Our website uses cookies so that we can continually improve the page and provide you with an optimized visitor experience. If you continue reading this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Further information regarding cookies can be found in the data protection note.
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.