The Federal Council and Parliament propose to amend the constitution in order to foster better cooperation between governments levels and to clarify responsibilities in the field of education.

YES

Nobody, or almost nobody has protested against these new articles. It helps little to study them, because articles of a constitution are usually horribly abstract and complicated. Who am I to judge the consequences of these articles?

The Federal Council and Parliament propose to amend labour law in order to legalize the status of many shops in train stations and airports. These shops open their gates on Sundays, while this is presently forbidden in the labour law. With the amended law, shops in about 25 train stations in Switzerland and in the two main airports will be allowed to open even on Sundays.

YES

Two main reasons speak for accepting the proposal. The first one is purely liberal: why should it be forbidden to go shopping and work on Sundays? There is no economic reason for the state to forbid this. The second reason is that it already works that way today, and I should think that a majority of people are happy with this situation (consumers, as well as employees). The trade unions, the main opponents to the proposal, together with clerical circles, argue that workers are exploited and that the Swiss must have their Sunday off in the family. Sorry, but this argument does not fit my liberal logic.

NO

The existing law GMO is sufficiently strong, there is no apparent reason to change it. Besides, bans have never been a good solution for economic problems; they are not in this case either. A ban in Switzerland will not restrain French farmers from producing such food. Neither German farmers for that part. But in exchange, every few years, there are 10'000 farmers blocking the inner city of Bern, asking for higher tariffs on agricultural goods.

The Federal Council and Parliament propose to reform Swiss federalism in order to counter some of the bad incentives and problems of the present system. In particular, the responsibility for some tasks - in which the federal state presently plays an (important) role - will be given fully to the cantons. In parallel, the redistributional mecanism presently in force will be reformed. For example, cantons that are net contributors to the system will not be able to decide about what there money should be used for in the receiving canton. This measure should promote investment efficiency.

YES

Switzerland's federal system has proved valuable in many aspects. However, the system has been watered down in the past fifty years and needs some reform, both in the field of finances and in the field of the tasks to be performed by the different government layers. Certainly, the suggested reform still contains rather big amounts of re-distribution between richer and poorer cantons, but it is still a lot better than the present system. The re-definition of responsibilities is generally considered necessary if federalism in Switzerland is to survive. Therefore, a YES vote is a must.

YES

VAT and direct taxes make for one third of the federal state's income. Rejecting this law would therefore mean that the federal state would be more or less bankrupt, and so would the cantons, which receive a large chunk of the federal tax on income. There can be no other answer to this problem than the acceptation of the Federal Council's suggestion.

This new law wants to prevent wild research on stem cells by allowing it within strict boundaries. The production of stem cells for research will be forbidden, and every research project will have to be examined from both an ethical and a scientific point of view. Several organisations, mostly religion-related, have put up a referendum against the new law and this is why we have to vote on it.

YES

The two main arguments in the discussion are relatively simple. On the pro-side, it is said that stem cell research may help to cure many diseases that are presently not curable. The opponents of the law basically state that stem cell research is equal to playing with human life, since stem cells are taken from embryos. This is ethically unacceptable for the opponents. My argument is, for a change, simply an economic one: not doing stem cell research is a public good. If Swiss scientists are not allowed to do their research in Switzerland, they will move abroad. Banning this kind of research in Switzerland will have literally no effect on stem cell research in the rest of the world. We might as well try to regulate this research properly and try to gain competitive advantage in this promising field. However, ethical concerns certainly are not to be discarded. I suggest a YES anyway.

The package consists of two objects. The first one aims to make it easier for second generation immigrants to be naturalized, meaning to get the Swiss passport. The second object aims at making it possible for third generation immigrants to automatically get a Swiss passport if they are born in the country.

YES

The reason for the YES is quite simple: the process of becoming Swiss is presently very long and expensive. This "immigration package" would allow some cost savings for both immigrants and the state. Immigrants who are not integrated in the Swiss community would probably not apply for citizenship anyway.

NO!!!!

I consider this initiative to be outdated and backward-looking. In effect, Switzerland cannot afford having post offices in villages that count no more than 50 inhabitants. Other countries, like Sweden, have found an elegant solution: post offices are integrated into normal local shop. Besides, the Swiss Post already offers very good services in villages where the post office was closed.

It is the umpteenth time the Swiss people have to vote on the introduction of a motherhood insurance. The new project offers mothers 80% of their salary, but no more than 172 CHF per day during a total of 16 weeks before and after the birth of a child. Only women that are active on the labour market would be insured, housewives would get nothing. Presently, there is no such offer and insurance is not mandatory. Women giving birth may not be fired between four weeks before and 10 weeks after the birth of the child. In the long run, the new insurance is expected to cost a sum of 0.1% of the sum of salaries in Switzerland.

YES

On one hand, it pains my liberal heart to vote yes to another state intervention in such a private field as the family. On the other hand, it might relieve my liberal heart if through this new insurance, Swiss fertility would rise, and women get the same opportunities as men in the labour market. It is known that Switzerland has low fertility and that it is very difficult to combine work and family in this country.
The cost of this insurance seems rather reasonable, though. If, in the end, this contributes to rising fertility and equal opportunities for the genders, then I'm in favor. But that cannot be known in advance. The oh-so-small 0.1% of the salaries may depress the labour market by oh-so-little, but still depress it...I suppose it depends on your priorities. My girlfriend decided on my preferences in this matter so now I am strongly in favour or the motherhood insurance.