He reaches into the hair. Looks around hastily. Then it bursts out of him. “I can hardly believe it! Won!” Pirmin Bishop loses yesterday at 12.45 p.m. on the stairs in front of the Federal court in Lausanne a little bit of the wording.
No wonder. He, sound CVP-Ständerat and lawyer, and half-a-dozen party colleagues have just written history. The Federal court has supported their complaints against the people’s vote on the marriage penalty-the Initiative and the ballot of 28. February 2016, cancelled. It was since the founding of the Federal state in 1848.
It is, in the words of Pirmin Bischof, “vrrruckt!”.
the decision of The legal division of the Federal court was clear. Four judges voted for the cancellation of the vote on the Initiative “For marriage and family against the marriage penalty”. Only one judge was against. The vote by the 28. February 2016, with only 50.8 percent no-votes are very scarce, it was decided, is thus null and void.
the beginning of the cancellation of the vote took a year ago. At the time, it was announced that the citizens had been informed before the vote patchy. The Federal government had recorded in the vote book that 80000 two-earner couples from the marriage penalty are affected.
Later, he had to admit that The number of victims was five times higher. According to recent estimates, 454 000 pairs are affected by the discrimination. This is an error, the Federal judge in Lausanne found not to justify blatant and legally. The voting citizens were simply misinformed. The number of 80000 two-earner married couples has never been challenged either in the media releases of the Federal Council, in parliamentary debates, in media reports and public debates.
omissions and errors
The judge wondered why the Federal Council and the Federal administration of data sets served from the year 2001 to 2016 in the voting booklet to the number of affected to inform open two-earner married couples. The accusation of ignorance floated in the courtroom. The population growth since 2001, remain disregarded, such as clear improvements in the estimation methods.
There were gaps. There was an error. A judge spoke of a “violation of the duty of information”; a second was a “serious, even shocking violation of the freedom of Vote to the Voters”; a third complained about a violation of the fundamental principles such as objectivity and transparency.
the majority of The judges agreed that The defects are not so severe that they distort the result of the vote, not only theoretically, but probably not. The end result was so scarce that it could have been, given the circumstances differently.
So, clearly, yesterday’s decision is, so it is unclear what is going to happen now. There is neither a law, nor a precedent, from which the further action are derived. The Federal Council is now a new date for a vote on the CVP Initiative? Or to discuss the Parliament on the Initiative, this time due to more precise estimates?
You stand in front of a Situation which have never been seen, said yesterday, the Federal Council spokesman André Simonazzi. The Federal Council will now wait for the written judgment. It is only when this exists, will draw the government’s “Teachings” and further action to discuss.
On the books of the Federal Council not to go, however, only with respect to marriage penalty Initiative. The Federal court in Lausanne attacked yesterday, the work of the Federal administration, in a rare sharpness. The five Federal judges tousled the work of the administration during the more than two and a half hour meeting in almost every second sentence.
The verbal tips to the Federal government in Bern court President François Chaix tried to break at the end of something. He spoke of a “rare exception”, a “special circumstance”, stressed the “exceptional character” of the matter, to prophesy, and finally: “This will remain the exception.”
Above all, a circumstance facilitated the judges of your decision to cancel the vote. The marriage penalty Initiative had failed, had to the legislation, therefore, no influence. In order that no legislation should be undone, the right to safety in Switzerland was not affected, said the judge. Unlike the voting rights on the complaint of the SP in 2011. It was clear at the time that the Federal Council had considered three years earlier, in the voting booklet for the corporate tax reform II, the loss of tax revenue too low. The trust of citizens in the information of the authorities seemed to be injured, the Federal court declined, however, to a cancellation of the referendum. The reason is that The USG II was already implemented. A cancellation would have had unforeseeable consequences. The concern for legal certainty prevailed.
the Triumph
So great is the joy of the CVP-Delegation yesterday in Lausanne was About the Triumph of a shadow. In the initiative’s text, which defines marriage as a Union between a man and a woman. This Definition of sexual not feel gay as discriminatory, many of the CVP members become very uncomfortable. She was in the referendum of February 2016, the strongest Argument of the initiative’s opponents. There is a new vote would have to defend the CVP again a Text that is rejected by large Parts of the party. The strategy of the CVP seems, therefore, aim to avoid a second referendum and to eliminate the marriage penalty by Parliament. However, it is questionable whether this is possible.
Although called the gay organisation Pink Cross yesterday that a new vote on this Ehedefinition should be avoided. “All the parties that call themselves liberal, should offer in Parliament for a solution,” says Pink-Cross, managing Director of Roman Heggli. The green-liberal Kathrin Bertschy, a leader in the resistance against the marriage penalty Initiative, for no reason. The Initiative is not only a conservative Ehedefinition, but also a conservative and for women, discriminatory tax will be anchored model. “We don’t want to.” Bertschy looks forward to a vote: “The Initiative would be rejected the next Time, clearer. The white also the CVP.”
Pirmin Bishop, however, sees it differently. He would prefer to realize in the Parliament, elimination of the marriage penalty. “If that doesn’t work, we will go, but of course, again in front of people.”
It is obvious Who will win before the Federal court against the Federal Council, must have before the people, have no fear.
(editing Tamedia)
Created: 10.04.2019, 22:18 PM
