Swiss Elections of 2015

[Brave Patato]

I thought this might be of international interest, since Switzerland has a certain role in finances, economy and is known for it's critical view of the EU.
Today, the old legislature (2011-2015) ended with the elections of the National Council and Council of States (for the latter a second round is held on 15th November).
Here the results for the National Council, which are definitive:
The right-conservative SVP/UDC (Swiss People's Party) was the clear winner with +11 seats. Also the FDP (the Liberals), who is close to the SVP had a plus of +3 seats. The SP/PS (Socialdemocratic Party) lost 2 seats, but is still the second strongest power. The CVP (Christian People's Party) and BDP (Conservative Democratic Party), both centre-right parties, lost just 1 seat each. The Greens lost 5 seats, while the glp (greenliberals) had the biggest loss with -6 seats.

There are two things we can determine. Firstly, there's a clear right-conservative tendency. Secondly, there was a polarisation on costs of middle parties like CVP, BDP, EVP (not listed above) and glp as well as the Greens.
What does this mean for the upcoming legislature? The influence of the new constellation is not universal. For instance, a lot of people see the energy transition endangered because of the Greens' loss. Since there will be a federal initiative, however, it's up to the people, who seemingly noticed the problem.
A more difficult thing lies in international relations, since the SVP is traditionally nationalistic. The FDP recognised the importance of international connection for economy growth and is thus likely to support at least the Bilaterals.
It can be said that the right-conservatives' success lies in the refugees crisis.


Anyway, after this as neutral as possible report, I wanna give some personal statements:
While this had to be expected, I'm still a bit disappointed. Not because I was personally involved in the campaign of my party but because I see Switzerland endangered. We can't do our own thing. We need the EU and the Bilaterals. Not because of economic growth, which I find a bit questionable after all, but because of the simple fact that we have to cooperate as a global society to solve problems such as as the refugee crisis. I deny isolation, nuclear energy, tax haven and the dismantling and privatisation of the public sector. I further deny any kind of inequalities and privileges for the super-rich.

Looking forward to your meaning about the new political situation in Switzerland!

[Recusant]

I read that the Swiss people had already voted in favor of a referendum placing limits on immigration, even though it was a close vote. The issue has only heated up since the vote, so this result isn't that surprising.

Thank you for that well written description of this election result, Brave Potato! 

[OldGit]

Interesting, BP!  So you want into the EU while so many here want out.  I wonder if a swap could be arranged?

[Brave Patato]

I read that the Swiss people had already voted in favor of a referendum placing limits on immigration, even though it was a close vote. The issue has only heated up since the vote, so this result isn't that surprising.

Thank you for that well written description of this election result, Brave Potato! 

It's indeed no surprise. These tendencies were quite clear, although the final results were more extreme than the estmates.

The good old mass immigration story. Yes, it's a very big topic since the Federal Council is forced to find a way insert the new law without giving up the Bilaterals. The nearly right-conservative dominated legislative won't really change that, however, since the FDP finally realised that they can't have both and they will ultimately go for economy, say for the Bilaterals.

Interesting, BP!  So you want into the EU while so many here want out.  I wonder if a swap could be arranged?

I'm not fully uncritical and I wouldn't say we should give up all autonomy. It's a fact that we need the EU and we'll always have to find compromises. The thing is that now we more or less have to adapt. F we were a member state we could take part in all the discussions. So, if I had to vote, I'd go for it, I think, yes.

[Brave Patato]

A colleague wrote this for an English socalist newspaper. It's clear that it's not that neutral but a good read, though.

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/25764

[Tom62]

A colleague wrote this for an English socalist newspaper. It's clear that it's not that neutral but a good read, though.

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/25764

The EU is an undemocratic, incoherent, politically and financially immoral institution. Its leaders are chosen (not elected!) from a bunch of 3rd rate politicians. These politicians must have the following 3. qualifications: 1. to have failed as a politician in their home countries, 2. not having any charisma and 3. not looking for any real power. This to ensure that the EU remains under German control. In the good old days it was a trade union between countries. Nowadays, it comes closer to a source of pure evil.   

[Tank]

A colleague wrote this for an English socalist newspaper. It's clear that it's not that neutral but a good read, though.

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/25764

The EU is an undemocratic, incoherent, politically and financially immoral institution. Its leaders are chosen (not elected!) from a bunch of 3rd rate politicians. These politicians must have the following 3. qualifications: 1. to have failed as a politician in their home countries, 2. not having any charisma and 3. not looking for any real power. This to ensure that the EU remains under German control. In the good old days it was a trade union between countries. Nowadays, it comes closer to a source of pure evil.

So you're not a fan then?

[OldGit]

The EU is an undemocratic, incoherent, politically and financially immoral institution. Its leaders are chosen (not elected!) from a bunch of 3rd rate politicians. These politicians must have the following 3. qualifications: 1. to have failed as a politician in their home countries, 2. not having any charisma and 3. not looking for any real power. This to ensure that the EU remains under German control. In the good old days it was a trade union between countries. Nowadays, it comes closer to a source of pure evil.

My own feelings entirely, Tom.  Years ago I was warning Greeks (for example) that it boils down to the Germans buying the mastery that they failed to win militarily.  Some Greeks thought I was an extremist nut case, but most of them agree with me now.

[xSilverPhinx]

A colleague wrote this for an English socalist newspaper. It's clear that it's not that neutral but a good read, though.

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/25764

The EU is an undemocratic, incoherent, politically and financially immoral institution. Its leaders are chosen (not elected!) from a bunch of 3rd rate politicians. These politicians must have the following 3. qualifications: 1. to have failed as a politician in their home countries, 2. not having any charisma and 3. not looking for any real power. This to ensure that the EU remains under German control. In the good old days it was a trade union between countries. Nowadays, it comes closer to a source of pure evil.

So you're not a fan then?

I get that gist as well.