Referendums in Switzerland 2023: Overview and Analysis of Key Proposals

This article provides an overview of the Referendums in Switzerland in 2023.

In Switzerland, three referendums will take place at federal level in 2023, as part of a ballot on June 18th. There are two optional referendums and one mandatory referendum.

Results[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

OECD minimum tax for companies[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

As part of efforts to reduce international tax competition, the G20 countries and the members of the OECD (including Switzerland) agreed in October 2021 to adapt the rules for taxing large corporate groups. “Taxation in the market state” (Pillar 1) affects international companies with an annual turnover of over 20 billion euros and a profitability of over 10%, which are now also to be taxed where they sell goods or provide services. The minimum taxation (Pillar 2) stipulates that international groups of companies with a turnover of more than 750 million euros are subject to a profit tax of at least 15% per year. An amendment to the Federal Constitution is required for the implementation of Pillar 1 in Switzerland, and a transitional provision for Pillar 2. In order to achieve the minimum tax rate, the federal government should levy a supplementary tax; three quarters of the income from this should go to the cantons and one quarter to the federal government. Both chambers of the Federal Assembly support the proposal. The SP and various unions reject them. In her view, the federal government should receive half of the additional income, because otherwise the money would mostly go to cantons that are already attractive to international corporations. The proponents counter that if it were rejected, the difference would be collected from other states.^[1][2]

Climate Protection Act[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

With the Paris Agreement in 2017, Switzerland committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In November 2019, a committee submitted the Glacier Initiative, with a goal of reducing net emissions to zero by 2050. It went too far for the Federal Council and Parliament, as it envisages a ban on fossil fuels. Parliament then decided on an indirect counter-proposal. Since the initiators agreed with its content, they withdrew the initiative conditionally. The counter-proposal provides that fossil fuels are reduced as much as possible and sets binding reference values ​​for individual sectors. The replacement of oil, gas and electric heating with climate-friendly alternatives is to be promoted, as is the expansion of district heating networks, the insulation of buildings and research into innovative climate protection technologies. Investments should also protect the population from the negative consequences of climate change. The SVP held a referendum against the corresponding federal law. In their opinion, the additional demand for electrical energy would increase so much that households would no longer be able to afford it; in addition, the security of supply would be jeopardized and the landscape would be spoiled by solar systems and wind turbines. Proponents countered that Switzerland would become less dependent on exporting countries with unreliable and unpredictable governments. The population will be supported in switching to climate-friendly energy, and the bill will not contain any new bans or additional taxes and levies.^[3][2]

Modification of the Covid-19 law[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

In December 2022, parliament extended parts of the Covid-19 law that would have expired at the end of 2022 until mid-2024. The Federal Council’s responsibility for the supply of important medical goods and the obligation of the cantons to provide capacity reserves in healthcare are to be continued and the international compatibility of the COVID-19 certificates. On the other hand, it rejected the Federal Council’s application to transfer the cost of corona tests from the federal government to the cantons. In order not to risk interrupting the validity of the parts of the law that are still in force, it declared the law urgent. As a result, the groupings “Friends of the Constitution”, “Moderate” and “Freedom Trychler”, which were critical of the measures, as well as the EDU and the Young SVP, held the referendum. They consider the extension to be useless and harmful because the pandemic has been declared over. It would still be possible to reintroduce a certificate and other measures perceived as discriminatory at any time. Of the major parties, only the SVP shares this opinion. Proponents argue that the law will allow medicines to continue to be made available quickly for those who are particularly vulnerable. It cannot be ruled out that some countries will again require a certificate upon entry. The provisions have only been extended so that they can be applied quickly if the situation deteriorates significantly.^[4][2]