Eight referendums were held inSwitzerland during 2009. The first was held on 8 February on extending the freedom of movement for workers from Bulgaria and Romania. The next two were held on 17 May 2009 on introducingbiometric passports and the "Future withcomplementary medicine" proposal. A further two were held on 27 September on increasing VAT and the introduction of public initiatives. The final three were held on 29 November on banning the construction of newminarets, exporting weapons and the use of aviation fuel taxation.
The February referendum was held on extending thefreedom of movement for workers within theEuropean Union toBulgaria andRomania, who joined the EU on 1 January 2007, and on removing thesunset provision from the agreement. If Swiss voters had rejected the continuation and extension, the EU would likely have invoked the so-called "guillotine clause" to terminate all agreements made as part of the bilateral treaties.[1]
A poll from January 2009 saw 49% in favour of extending the agreement, 40% opposed and 11% undecided; 48% of voters said they would participate in the referendum.[2]
The referendum concluded with a vote in favour of the extension, withGerman andFrench-speakingcantons mostly voting in favour (except for narrow votes against inSchwyz,Glarus andAppenzell Innerrhoden) and theItalian-speakingTicino strongly voting against.[3]
The result caused the left-wingGreen Party and theSocial Democratic Party to state that they would renew their push forSwiss EU membership.[4]
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| For | 1,517,132 | 59.61 |
| Against | 1,027,899 | 40.39 |
| Invalid/blank votes | 27,009 | – |
| Total | 2,572,040 | 100 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 4,999,618 | 51.44 |
| Source:Direct Democracy | ||
The two referendums in May concerned:
The biometric passport introduction approval was accepted with a slim majority, with 50.15% in favour of the proposal; the complementary medicine proposal was accepted with 67.0% in favour. Turnout was 39%.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| For | 953,173 | 50.15 |
| Against | 947,493 | 49.85 |
| Invalid/blank votes | 42,191 | – |
| Total | 1,942,857 | 100 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 5,010,873 | 38.77 |
| Source:Direct Democracy | ||
| Choice | Public vote | Cantons | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | % | Full | Half | Total | |
| For | 1,283,894 | 67.03 | 20 | 6 | 23 |
| Against | 631,560 | 32.97 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Invalid/blank votes | 28,805 | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 1,944,259 | 100 | 20 | 6 | 23 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 5,010,873 | 38.80 | – | – | – |
| Source:Direct Democracy | |||||
The September referendum put two questions to voters:[5]
| Choice | Public vote | Cantons | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | % | Full | Half | Total | |
| For | 1,112,818 | 54.56 | 11 | 2 | 12 |
| Against | 926,730 | 45.44 | 9 | 4 | 11 |
| Invalid/blank votes | 23,580 | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 2,063,128 | 100 | 20 | 6 | 23 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 5,030,915 | 41.01 | – | – | – |
| Source:Direct Democracy | |||||
| Choice | Public vote | Cantons | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | % | Full | Half | Total | |
| For | 1,307,237 | 67.88 | 20 | 6 | 23 |
| Against | 618,664 | 32.12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Invalid/blank votes | 108,192 | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 2,034,093 | 100 | 20 | 6 | 23 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 5,030,915 | 40.43 | – | – | – |
| Source:Direct Democracy | |||||
In the November referendum voters decide on three proposals on the federal level:[6]
There were numerous other issues voted upon at the cantonal and municipal levels.
Only one political party, the right wingSwiss People's Party supported the referendum.[citation needed] Pakistani newspaperThe Nation on 30 January 2010 carried a fabricated story according to which "the first man who had launched a drive for imposition of ban on mosques minarets" had seen the error of his "evil ways" and had converted to Islam, which had supposedly "created furore in Swiss politics", claiming that Streich "is ashamed of his doings now and desires to construct the most beautiful mosque of Europe in Switzerland."[8]Tikkun Daily on 5 February debunkedThe Nation's story as a distorted version of a report onDaniel Streich, a Swiss Muslim who left the Swiss People's Party because he was outraged with their campaign.[9]
Final results showed 57.5% of voters in favour of the ban, 19.5cantons out of 23 in favour of the proposals.[10]
| Choice | Public vote | Cantons | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | % | Full | Half | Total | |
| For | 1,535,010 | 57.50 | 17 | 5 | 19.5 |
| Against | 1,134,440 | 42.50 | 3 | 1 | 3.5 |
| Invalid/blank votes | 39,837 | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 2,709,287 | 100 | 20 | 6 | 23 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 5,039,676 | 53.76 | – | – | – |
| Source:Direct Democracy | |||||
Key to above graph:
The arms referendum sought to ban the export of military weapons and ammunition, in order to further reduce Switzerland's involvement in war. Current law prohibits the exports of materiel to countries involved in armed conflict, or violating human rights. The Swiss arms industry warned of possible job losses if passed, and the cabinet recommended against it saying that existing legislation offers enough protections. The group backing the initiative argued that weapons exports contradict the country's neutrality. A similar initiative was defeated in 1997.
Voters rejected the proposal by 68.2%, with 31.5% in favour of the measure. Turnout was 53%.[11]
| Choice | Public vote | Cantons | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | % | Full | Half | Total | |
| For | 837,156 | 31.77 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Against | 1,798,132 | 68.23 | 20 | 3 | 23 |
| Invalid/blank votes | 55,200 | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 2,690,488 | 100 | 20 | 6 | 23 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 5,039,676 | 53.39 | – | – | – |
| Source:Direct Democracy | |||||
The aviation fuel tax referendum was initiated by centre-right and right members of parliament to direct much of the taxes on kerosene to airport spending. Previously two-thirds of the taxes collected were spent on road safety, with the rest going to the federal general fund. The initiative directs the two-thirds to aviation safety and environmental concerns, with the remainder continuing to be used for discretionary spending.[12]
Voters approved the measure with 65% in favour.[13]
| Choice | Public vote | Cantons | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | % | Full | Half | Total | |
| For | 1,609,682 | 64.99 | 20 | 6 | 23 |
| Against | 867,113 | 35.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Invalid/blank votes | 175,410 | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 2,652,205 | 100 | 20 | 6 | 23 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 5,039,676 | 52.63 | – | – | – |
| Source:Direct Democracy | |||||
In thecanton of Obwalden, the voting population turned down plans to reserve sections of land for the wealthy, officially designated "high quality standard of life zones of cantonal interest". These zones were part of Obwalden's strategy of increasing tax attractiveness in competition with other cantons. The referendum was successfully opposed by the cantonal section of theSwiss Green Party. Obwalden already has aflat tax system for the benefit of its rich residents, and attempted to introduce aregressive tax system, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Swiss Federal Court.[14]
.svg)
