In Switzerland, voters can have a say over the final ratification of big international trade agreements, if a referendum is forced.
Have you had experience with voting on such an issue? What do you think – does popular input boost the legitimacy of such deals, or are trade issues best left to the specialists? Let us know below.
THE EU TREATY: THE TROJAN HORSE – a serious breach of the Constitution________Here, a so-called ‘trade agreement’ is being foisted upon the people with malicious intent – one that undermines the Swiss Constitution.____This is precisely what concerns me about the Switzerland–EU package. Not because I reject Europe. But because I take the Swiss Constitution seriously.____The public debate ostensibly revolves around market access, electricity agreements and cohesion contributions. But they obscure what this treaty is at its core: a silent mechanism – one that knows no inherent limits. This coercion is inextricably hidden within the treaty.____Three points every citizen should be aware of:____Firstly: The penalised ‘no’. The treaty stipulates that the EU may take compensatory measures if Switzerland rejects an EU provision. A referendum with economic penalties is no longer a free referendum. Article 34 of our Federal Constitution protects the free formation of opinion. This protection is being removed.____Secondly: The ECJ above the Federal Supreme Court. In the event of disputes, the arbitration tribunal refers the matter to the European Court of Justice – the court of the contracting party. Its decision is binding. For 700 years, the founding documents of the Swiss Confederation have stated: no foreign judges. The end of neutral jurisdiction. Subjugation____Thirdly: The blank cheque. The dynamic adoption of law currently applies to the single market, electricity and healthcare. But the mechanism knows no substantive limits. What is not in the treaty today may be introduced through it tomorrow — without new popular legislation, without a new referendum. E.g. When will the Swiss franc and the independence of the National Bank be up for discussion?____Who knows the content: 2,228 pages plus over 20,000 pages of secondary legislation?____End of neutrality — if Switzerland is obliged to automatically adopt EU sanctions packages? ____A mechanism for the dynamic adoption of legislation is not a treaty between equals — it is a blank cheque. Switzerland is signing up to accept future decisions by a foreign institution as binding. ____This is just a short piece — with few examples of what is at stake. ______The greatest poverty is not having nothing. The greatest poverty is being nothing
DER EU-VERTRAG: DAS TROJANISCHE PFERD - gravierende Verletzung der Verfassung________Hier wird mit böswilliger Absicht dem Volk ein sogenanntes "Handelsabkommen" untergeschoben - welches die Schweizer Verfassung zerstört.____Genau das beschäftigt mich beim Paket Schweiz–EU. Nicht weil ich Europa ablehne. Sondern weil ich die Schweizer Verfassung ernst nehme.____Die öffentliche Debatte dreht sich um vordergründig um Marktzugang, Stromabkommen und Kohäsionsbeiträge. Aber sie verdecken, was dieser Vertrag in seinem Kern ist: ein stiller Mechanismus - der keine inhärente Grenzen kennt. Dieser Zwang ist untrennbar im Vertrag versteckt.____Drei Punkte, die jede Bürgerin und jeder Bürger kennen sollte:____Erstens: Das bestrafte Nein. Der Vertrag sieht vor, dass die EU Ausgleichsmassnahmen ergreifen darf, wenn die Schweiz eine EU-Bestimmung ablehnt. Ein Volksentscheid mit wirtschaftlichen Straffolgen ist kein freier Volksentscheid mehr. Artikel 34 unserer Bundesverfassung schützt die freie Willensbildung. Dieser Schutz wird aufgehoben.____Zweitens: Der EuGH über dem Bundesgericht. Bei Streitigkeiten legt das Schiedsgericht die Frage dem Europäischen Gerichtshof — dem Gericht der Vertragspartnerin — vor. Dessen Entscheid ist bindend. Seit 700 Jahren steht in den Gründungsurkunden der Eidgenossenschaft: keine fremden Richter. Ende einer neutralen Rechtsprechung. Unterwerfung____Drittens: Der Blankocheck. Die dynamische Rechtsübernahme gilt heute für Binnenmarkt, Strom, Gesundheit. Aber der Mechanismus kennt keine inhaltliche Begrenzung. Was heute nicht im Vertrag steht, kann morgen durch ihn kommen — ohne neues Volksrecht, ohne neue Abstimmung. Z.B Wann steht der Schweizer Franken und die die Unabhängigkeit der Nationalbank zur Diskussion?____Wer kennt den Inhalt: 2’228 Seiten plus über 20’000 Seiten sekundäre Erlasse ?____Ende der Neutralität - Wenn die Schweiz automatisch EU-Sanktionspakete übernehmen muss? ____Ein Mechanismus der dynamischen Rechtsübernahme ist kein Vertrag zwischen Gleichen — es ist ein Blankocheck. Die Schweiz unterschreibt, dass sie künftige Entscheide einer fremden Institution als bindend akzeptiert. ____Es ist nur ein kurzer Beitrag - mit wenig Beispielen, die auf dem Spiel stehen. ______Die größte Armut ist nicht, nichts zu haben. Die größte Armut ist, nichts zu sein
The government is to represent the people. If the population doesn't want to pander to Israel's genocide or the warmongering Americans, then that should be held into account.
Democratic participation in trade decisions is legitimate. But the key question is not whether the public should participate, but how, and through what institutional framework.____Not all decisions are equal. A trade agreement that reshapes geopolitical balances or constrains regulatory sovereignty for decades cannot be compared to an ordinary law. The cost of error is asymmetrical: a poorly negotiated agreement is difficult to renegotiate, impossible to annul without causing damage. In such cases, a 50% threshold for legitimacy is structurally inadequate, not because the public lacks competence, but because a narrow majority, built on a campaign lasting just a few weeks, does not represent a stable social consensus. Brexit demonstrated this cruelly: 48% of the voting population and a large proportion of those who abstained found themselves bound by a decision they had not supported, with no possibility of appeal.____For decisions of this magnitude, the threshold should be a qualified majority—at least two-thirds—and preceded by a serious deliberative process. Not snap polls, not advertising campaigns funded by organised interests, but randomly selected citizens’ assemblies: representative samples of the population, briefed by a diverse range of experts, with sufficient time to understand the real trade-offs. Their mandate would not be to replace the popular vote, but to structure it, defining the priorities and limits within which an agreement is acceptable, before negotiations are concluded and the question becomes binary.____This is not a theoretical model. Ireland has applied it in practice: the Citizens’ Assembly of 2016–2017 paved the way for the 2018 abortion referendum. A representative sample of ordinary citizens – not experts, not politicians – deliberated for months, listened to conflicting views, and produced recommendations which parliament then put to a popular vote. The result was not a slower democracy: it was a democracy that was harder to manipulate.
La partecipazione democratica nelle decisioni commerciali è legittima. Ma la domanda rilevante non è se il pubblico debba partecipare ma è come, e con quale architettura istituzionale.____Non tutte le decisioni sono uguali. Un accordo commerciale che ridisegna assetti geopolitici o vincola la sovranità regolatoria per decenni non è comparabile a una legge ordinaria. Il costo dell'errore è asimmetrico: un accordo mal negoziato è difficile da rinegoziare, impossibile da annullare senza danni. In questi casi, una soglia di legittimazione del 50% 1 è strutturalmente inadeguata, non perché il pubblico non sia competente, ma perché una maggioranza risicata, costruita su una campagna di poche settimane, non rappresenta un consenso sociale stabile. La Brexit lo ha dimostrato con crudeltà: il 48% della popolazione votante e una larga parte degli astenuti si sono ritrovati vincolati a una decisione che non avevano sostenuto, senza possibilità di appello.____Per decisioni di questa portata, la soglia dovrebbe essere qualificata, almeno due terzi, e preceduta da un processo deliberativo serio. Non sondaggi istantanei, non campagne pubblicitarie finanziate da interessi organizzati, ma assemblee cittadine sorteggiate: campioni rappresentativi della popolazione, informati da esperti plurali, con tempo sufficiente per capire i trade-off reali. Il loro mandato non sarebbe sostituire il voto popolare, ma strutturarlo, definire le priorità e i limiti entro cui un accordo è accettabile, prima che il negoziato sia chiuso e la domanda diventi binaria.____Non è un modello teorico. L'Irlanda lo ha applicato concretamente: la Citizens' Assembly del 2016-2017 ha preparato il terreno per il referendum sull'aborto del 2018. Un campione rappresentativo di cittadini comuni, non esperti, non politici, ha deliberato per mesi, ascoltato posizioni contrastanti, e prodotto raccomandazioni che il parlamento ha poi sottoposto a voto popolare. Il risultato non è stato una democrazia più lenta: è stata una democrazia più difficile da manipolare.
The public should have the final say on major trade deals. This strengthens legitimacy and stability, because the decision is not left only to politicians or specialists. ____Experts should still be consulted, and their analysis should be explained clearly to voters, but the final choice should remain with the people.
There should be no trade deals. Why should politicians come between a buyer and a seller? There should be no tariffs which act either as bribes to the government as a highwayman, or to protect native industries from competition. And there should be no subsidies which benefit native industries at the expense of all the other citizens.
Whilst popular input to such complex topics can seemingly, provide legitimacy, alas, this might not be as simple as it perhaps appears. ____I have studied Trade law
Thanks Legspinner - do you think the main complexity is in the legal rules and conditions involved in such deals, or rather in gauging what impact the deals will have in reality
But do you think that leaving it up to politicians alone would be a better solution? Most of them vote from a party political view, rather than what is really best for the country.____Therefore it must be for the voters to make the final choice.
Join the conversation!