4 ms·

I (Swiss citizen) being really disgusted at the whole poll, not just the CO2, and the anti insecticide and the pro-clean drink-water was rejected, but especiall

by nix23 5y ago

I (Swiss citizen) being really disgusted at the whole poll, not just the CO2, and the anti insecticide and the pro-clean drink-water was rejected, but especially the "anti-terror" was accepted (means the police don't have to ask a judge when long-term restricting your freedom, even when you haven't done anything against the law, just a potential "terrorist" down to 12 yo...without having to ask a judge...it's disgusting, a bit like a internal Guantanamo-bay)

refurb 5y ago
People didn’t vote for a “pro-clean water” law? Are they anti-clean water or is your summary not all that accurate of a description?
- jstanley 5y ago
  For example, they might think the water is clean enough already and they don't want to be taxed any more to make it any cleaner.
  - nix23 5y ago
    The opposite, we (well the government) pay/supports farmers who make "high-performance" farming, with that law they have to produce more in line with nature if they still want to be supported.
- nix23 5y ago
  It was restricting antibiotic, without pesticides and not more animals than you can produce food for them, with than less nitrates/pesticides and antibiotics flows into the water. Copy/Paste Translation: Initial situation Farmers receive direct payments from the federal government. However, they only receive the money if they comply with certain rules. These include, for example, the protection of biodiversity, rules on fertilizing and animal husbandry. An initiative has been submitted to introduce additional rules for direct payments. That is why we are now voting on it. What would change? If the initiative is accepted, there will be additional rules for direct payments. Farmers will only receive direct payments if they: set aside a certain amount of their land for the protection of biodiversity; produce pesticide-free. refrain from preventive or regular use of antibiotics on their animals. keep only as many animals as they can feed with the feed they grow themselves. This reduces the amount of fertilizer used. Agricultural research, consulting, investment aid and training are also geared to these goals. https://www.easyvote.ch/de/abstimmungen/13-juni/trinkwasserinitiative https://www.easyvote.ch/de/abstimmungen/13-juni/trinkwasseri...
  - namdnay 5y ago
    > keep only as many animals as they can feed with the feed they grow themselves woahhhh... that's a pretty huge requirement, no?
    - snovv_crash 5y ago
      Yes, although note the proposed initiative wasn't to make it illegal to do that, just you wouldn't qualify for subsidies anymore.
    - jeltz 5y ago
      Yeah, I feel th first two requirements are fairly uncontroversial while the last is a huge paradigm shift (maybe for the better, but still huge). I do not think I like that they were grouped together.
- trabant00 5y ago
  Why do you assume it was a good law? Just because of its title?
- jeffrallen 5y ago
  The initiative proposed to "protect clean water" by toughening the conditions on farmers to receive federal subsidies. The first two conditions were not especially controversial, but the third was a totally unmanageable show stopper: that a farm could only feed their animals with feed grown in the farm itself. People either voted against because their party told them to (plenty of parties were against it) or because of the third condition.
  - ianai 5y ago
    That sounds like a poison pill to kill the bill.
  - soco 5y ago
    Somehow the statistics of the rising cancer diagnostics in agrarian areas are not a concern for the regular folk (like the documented 43% more incidence of brain tumors)
- occamrazor 5y ago
  The clean water initiative would have denied public subsidies to farmers who didn’t drastically reduce pesticide use. The farmers‘ lobby and the right wing parties representing a majority of the votes were against it. The outcome was not surprising.
  - soco 5y ago
    Don't forget the usual Swiss mentalities: 1. we always did it this way and it worked and 2. we're already an extraordinary country nothing more is needed.
- dgellow 5y ago
  Just a general note, as a Swiss citizen: people are generally not in favor of federal regulations when a change could instead be implemented directly by states (I.e: canton). Initiatives at the federal level aren’t that popular.
snovv_crash 5y ago
I find it crazy that the libertarian-leaning right wing in general was pro the terrorism law... surely this gives too much authority to the government?
sschueller 5y ago
Yes, I am with you. I was very disappointed especially the new police law. I can see the clean water and pesticide not passing because it was too much too fast and scared off a lot of people. Sadly in the same go people then also killed the CO2 law. But this is Switzerland. We accept the result and move on. There is a shift and I expect more and more of these "green" law to come up for a vote and with more and more young voting they will get passed. Also it appears that the Police law may actually be illegal (Grundrecht Verletzung) and could be killed by the courts.
- nix23 5y ago
  > I can see the clean water and pesticide not passing because it was too much too fast and scared off a lot of people. Sadly in the same go people then also killed the CO2 law. Yeah have to agree on that...it's just, that pool gave me the feeling of no step forward three steps back. >Also it appears that the Police law may actually be illegal (Grundrecht Verletzung) and could be killed by the courts. I really hope..it's like we don't need the justice system if you can tag peoples (potential terrorist)..a bit like the Stasi (potential capitalist) in the DDR, no need to ask a judge and take responsibility for it.
  - sschueller 5y ago
    > "Yeah have to agree on that...it's just, that pool gave me the feeling of no step forward three steps back." It did feel like that. At least we can make pressure on the farmers by buying only bio (even if it means eating less meat because it costs more) and showing that we are willing to pay more for "clean" food.
- lasftew 5y ago
  Young people were more likely to vote against the CO2 law than older people [1]. They also are more likely to be affected by increased costs of living and traveling that were proposed, due to much smaller incomes and budget. [1] https://nzzas.nzz.ch/schweiz/gar-nicht-so-gruen-junge-stimmen-gegen-umweltanliegen-ld.1626630 https://nzzas.nzz.ch/schweiz/gar-nicht-so-gruen-junge-stimme...
- 5y ago
sureglymop 5y ago
Same here.. it is sad but there always seems to be a general lack of awareness over the polls. I believe that unfortunately many people did not bother to inform themselves thoroughly about the propositions.
h0nd 5y ago
Same here. Especially the law that ignores human rights and enforces discrimination. I do not consider myself part of that community anymore. (edit: in terms of, these are not the values I grew up with)

by nix23 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

People didn’t vote for a “pro-clean water” law? Are they anti-clean water or is your summary not all that accurate of a description?

jstanley 5y ago
For example, they might think the water is clean enough already and they don't want to be taxed any more to make it any cleaner.
- nix23 5y ago
  The opposite, we (well the government) pay/supports farmers who make "high-performance" farming, with that law they have to produce more in line with nature if they still want to be supported.
nix23 5y ago
It was restricting antibiotic, without pesticides and not more animals than you can produce food for them, with than less nitrates/pesticides and antibiotics flows into the water. Copy/Paste Translation: Initial situation Farmers receive direct payments from the federal government. However, they only receive the money if they comply with certain rules. These include, for example, the protection of biodiversity, rules on fertilizing and animal husbandry. An initiative has been submitted to introduce additional rules for direct payments. That is why we are now voting on it. What would change? If the initiative is accepted, there will be additional rules for direct payments. Farmers will only receive direct payments if they: set aside a certain amount of their land for the protection of biodiversity; produce pesticide-free. refrain from preventive or regular use of antibiotics on their animals. keep only as many animals as they can feed with the feed they grow themselves. This reduces the amount of fertilizer used. Agricultural research, consulting, investment aid and training are also geared to these goals. https://www.easyvote.ch/de/abstimmungen/13-juni/trinkwasserinitiative https://www.easyvote.ch/de/abstimmungen/13-juni/trinkwasseri...
- namdnay 5y ago
  > keep only as many animals as they can feed with the feed they grow themselves woahhhh... that's a pretty huge requirement, no?
  - snovv_crash 5y ago
    Yes, although note the proposed initiative wasn't to make it illegal to do that, just you wouldn't qualify for subsidies anymore.
  - jeltz 5y ago
    Yeah, I feel th first two requirements are fairly uncontroversial while the last is a huge paradigm shift (maybe for the better, but still huge). I do not think I like that they were grouped together.
trabant00 5y ago
Why do you assume it was a good law? Just because of its title?
jeffrallen 5y ago
The initiative proposed to "protect clean water" by toughening the conditions on farmers to receive federal subsidies. The first two conditions were not especially controversial, but the third was a totally unmanageable show stopper: that a farm could only feed their animals with feed grown in the farm itself. People either voted against because their party told them to (plenty of parties were against it) or because of the third condition.
- ianai 5y ago
  That sounds like a poison pill to kill the bill.
- soco 5y ago
  Somehow the statistics of the rising cancer diagnostics in agrarian areas are not a concern for the regular folk (like the documented 43% more incidence of brain tumors)
occamrazor 5y ago
The clean water initiative would have denied public subsidies to farmers who didn’t drastically reduce pesticide use. The farmers‘ lobby and the right wing parties representing a majority of the votes were against it. The outcome was not surprising.
- soco 5y ago
  Don't forget the usual Swiss mentalities: 1. we always did it this way and it worked and 2. we're already an extraordinary country nothing more is needed.
dgellow 5y ago
Just a general note, as a Swiss citizen: people are generally not in favor of federal regulations when a change could instead be implemented directly by states (I.e: canton). Initiatives at the federal level aren’t that popular.

snovv_crash 5y ago

I find it crazy that the libertarian-leaning right wing in general was pro the terrorism law... surely this gives too much authority to the government?

sschueller 5y ago

Yes, I am with you. I was very disappointed especially the new police law. I can see the clean water and pesticide not passing because it was too much too fast and scared off a lot of people. Sadly in the same go people then also killed the CO2 law. But this is Switzerland. We accept the result and move on. There is a shift and I expect more and more of these "green" law to come up for a vote and with more and more young voting they will get passed. Also it appears that the Police law may actually be illegal (Grundrecht Verletzung) and could be killed by the courts.

nix23 5y ago
> I can see the clean water and pesticide not passing because it was too much too fast and scared off a lot of people. Sadly in the same go people then also killed the CO2 law. Yeah have to agree on that...it's just, that pool gave me the feeling of no step forward three steps back. >Also it appears that the Police law may actually be illegal (Grundrecht Verletzung) and could be killed by the courts. I really hope..it's like we don't need the justice system if you can tag peoples (potential terrorist)..a bit like the Stasi (potential capitalist) in the DDR, no need to ask a judge and take responsibility for it.
- sschueller 5y ago
  > "Yeah have to agree on that...it's just, that pool gave me the feeling of no step forward three steps back." It did feel like that. At least we can make pressure on the farmers by buying only bio (even if it means eating less meat because it costs more) and showing that we are willing to pay more for "clean" food.
lasftew 5y ago
Young people were more likely to vote against the CO2 law than older people [1]. They also are more likely to be affected by increased costs of living and traveling that were proposed, due to much smaller incomes and budget. [1] https://nzzas.nzz.ch/schweiz/gar-nicht-so-gruen-junge-stimmen-gegen-umweltanliegen-ld.1626630 https://nzzas.nzz.ch/schweiz/gar-nicht-so-gruen-junge-stimme...
5y ago

sureglymop 5y ago

Same here.. it is sad but there always seems to be a general lack of awareness over the polls. I believe that unfortunately many people did not bother to inform themselves thoroughly about the propositions.

h0nd 5y ago

Same here. Especially the law that ignores human rights and enforces discrimination. I do not consider myself part of that community anymore. (edit: in terms of, these are not the values I grew up with)