In Hamburg, a referendum for an unconditional basic income may not be carried out for the time being. But that can be corrected.
Now they have the answer: the referendum must not be carried out in the current version Photo: dpa / Ulrich Perrey
HAMBURG taz | The referendum “Hamburg should test basic income!” must not be carried out. The draft law of the popular initiative “Expedition Basic Income” is not compatible with higher-ranking law. The draft is misleading, citizens cannot adequately understand the consequences of the demands of the initiative.
In its judgment, however, the court explicitly contradicts the argument of the red-green Senate that Hamburg should not deal with this topic at state level and that only the federal government is responsible for it.
“The referendum does not meet the requirements that would result from the principle of democracy to protect the freedom of voters to decide for or against the proposal,” the Hamburg Constitutional Court ruled on Wednesday. For Rainer Ammermann from the popular initiative However, this is not the most important statement of the judgement: “The court has determined that a pilot project for an unconditional basic income is in principle compatible with state law,” says Ammermann.
The “Expedition Basic Income” initiative was founded in Berlin in 2020. She wants to carry out scientifically supported model tests for the unconditional basic income. As a result, a support group was also formed in Hamburg.
At most 40 million euros
She demands that at least 2,000 people in Hamburg should be provided with a monthly cash payment – unconditionally and without a means test over a period of three years. The total costs for this should not exceed 40 million euros. How they imagined the whole thing concretely, they formulated in a draft law.
After handing over more than 10,000 signatures from supporters to the Senate for this demand in the first step of the Hamburg People’s Legislation at the beginning of 2020, they applied for a referendum to be carried out. The Senate did not want to make the request its own and refused to implement it. At the same time, he expressed “considerable doubts” about the constitutionality of the petition for a referendum and complained accordingly to the constitutional court.
Among other things, the Senate criticized the fact that the state of Hamburg had no legislative competence for the draft law – this would fall within federal competence. The Hamburg Senate could have noticed as early as March 2021 that this argumentation is shaky.
The Berlin colleagues in the Senate Chancellery there came to the conclusion that such a referendum is permissible and, in particular, compatible with higher-ranking law. However, the Berlin popular initiative ultimately failed because it did not find enough supporters.
Rainer Ammermann, spokesman for the popular initiative
“The court gave us a good and detailed legal framework for Hamburg”
And so this argument on Wednesday did not lead to the court then refusing to carry out the referendum: It is indeed legislation in the field of public welfare, because the potential neediness of the participants should be minimized or eliminated. The federal government can therefore enact laws without involving the federal states.
However: “If matters of public welfare only affect citizens of a certain country, the federal regulations leave room for state laws that enable a model project to further develop the system of basic social security without undermining the existing system.”
The fact that the referendum may not be carried out is due to the draft law, which violates the principle of democracy – there are too many contradictions and gaps. Thus, the voters are not sufficiently enabled to have an overview of the effects of the project and to assess the main advantages and disadvantages. Those entitled to vote must be able to understand the framework conditions of the experiment and its effects.
Among other things, it is misleading to speak of an “unconditional” basic income – the draft contains regulations for income calculation and for the assessment of individual needs. He would also create the wrong image, with the monthly 1,120 euros for adults and 560 euros for minors, there is sufficient basic security. They could also not see whether the gain in knowledge targeted with the pilot project could be achieved.
“Lost and still won”
Rainer Ammermann is therefore confident that he can make a new attempt: “The court gave us a good and detailed legal framework for Hamburg. It is positive that the court has specified the requirements for the drafting of the law.”
Remo Klinger, lawyer for the popular initiative, sees the verdict as positive. It gave them the necessary instructions for further action. “We lost and still won,” he says. The court dispelled the fundamental doubts about the legislative competence.
Joy Ponader, co-founder of the Basic Income Expedition, now wants to examine with her fellow campaigners how they want to continue. “We want a referendum in Hamburg at the latest for the federal elections. That’s why we need a new draft law and a second attempt now,” says Ponader.
2023-07-12 22:38:29
#Constitutional #Court #rules #basic #income #Hamburg
