Mr Pfister, a historic decision by the Federal court. You expected him to?
I had symptoms in the last days, that the Federal court is not taking our Complaints seriously. My hope was, and I’ll take the decision.
What was your view after the rash?
to Me, the written justification is not yet available. Decisive but the combination of such a tight vote output and such a grave is likely to be wrong information in the Voting pamphlet. It is confidence in the system of direct democracy is crucial that you repeat such a vote.
Can not shake the confidence in our voting system, when all of a sudden people’s votes need to be repeated?
This is a certain Dilemma, I will give you that. Here, the extent of the misinformation was so great that one would not have been repetition even worse. The error is happening, a re-ballot is the best possible correction of this loss of Confidence.
Would then have to be repeated very nearly adopted the corporate tax reform II (CTR II)? The Federal Council introduced in the voting booklet short-term loss of tax revenue of almost CHF 100 million in view, in fact, there were billions of failures.
In the USR II, the Federal Council had to rely on forecasts, on the most likely consequences of those template. In the case of the marriage penalty, however it was simply a question of the evidence base. And this is thoroughly failed.
The Federal court held, however, the voting notes to the USR II would have allowed the voting citizens is not a correct opinion.
The USR II was in contrast to the marriage penalty at the time of the lawsuit. A cancellation would have led to great legal uncertainty. This is, in my opinion, a big difference. But for a more detailed evaluation, you must wait for the written grounds of today’s judgment.
How to do it more now?
We are calling for a new message from the Federal Council of our Initiative. Then must refer the matter to Parliament again with the template. Because even in the councils of an important Argument of the opponents was, by this Initiative, only 80’000 people would be affected. We need to allow the Parliament to advise in the light of new facts.
The Parliament has recommended how the Federal Council, the Initiative for the rejection. This is unlikely to change with the new output.
The Parliament should consider whether it would like to say, in view of the closeness of the referendum and the adoption by a majority of cantons, once again, no. Even with wrong Numbers, this Initiative had very good chances, and with the right Numbers, their prospects are even better. In addition, you can bring in Parliament the question of a direct counter-proposal back on the table.
the Initiative was also Criticized because of the clause that defines marriage as a life community of a man and a woman and the marriage for all the excludes. Hold to this Definition?
The CVP itself has decided not tabled in the Council of States is a direct counter-proposal, in which, on this passage. Us, with the Initiative not to the Ehedefinition, but to the elimination of discrimination.
What sets the CVP for now – on the Initiative or the counter proposal without the Ehedefinition?
When it comes to the enemies, only the Ehedefinition, I am quite willing to discuss them. But then agree with the opponents of the abolition of the marriage penalty? I don’t think so. We are now waiting first, the Federal Council’s message and the parliamentary debate. And there, the opponents are primarily demanded, which had fought with the concerns with some flimsy arguments.
Would it not be time for the individual taxation, than to continue to fight for the abolition of the marriage penalty?
no, because the individual taxation would increase the administrative burden is enormous. This would not be a modern improvement but a deterioration. In addition, the massive discrimination against marriage in the case of the AHV would not be eliminated. For me personally, this is even more important that we can finally couples two full pensions, and not only a year and a half. (Editorial Tamedia)
Created: 10.04.2019, 16:17 PM