Contents
In the voting “arena” for the Covid 19 law, supporters and opponents crossed swords. The government’s actions in the corona pandemic played a major role in this.
The pandemic has subsided somewhat. In the voting “arena”, however, the Covid 19 law made emotions run high. In September 2020, parliament converted the Bundesrat’s emergency law into an ordinary law, and it has been amended several times since then. Parliament extended some of the provisions until mid-June 2024. On the other hand, two organizations held the referendum.
“The Covid law has divided our society like never before,” said Nicolas A. Rimoldi, President of “Mass-Voll” and Co-President of the Referendum Committee, explaining the decision. The obligation to have certificates would have put people under massive pressure and violated their right to make free decisions about their own bodies. People who did not get vaccinated were excluded from society. This division is now finally to be overcome by saying no to the Covid law.
Responsible for all the difficulties is not the Covid 19 law, but the pandemic, contradicted SP Councilor Daniel Jositsch. Three years ago, little was known about its course. The federal government therefore acted correctly: “The protective measures saved lives and allowed the population to resume their everyday lives.”
Even with the current state of knowledge, the corona virus is unpredictable, says Jositsch. However, it is unlikely that there could be another certification requirement domestically: “It is about ensuring freedom of travel.”
The pandemic is over, the law is redundant.
The Covid certificate is of no use for this, countered Roland Bühlmann, co-president of the referendum committee and president of “Friends of the Constitution”: “Each country can decide for itself whether to accept the Swiss certificate.” The certificate also does not protect against the transmission of the virus. The supporters of the Covid 19 law operated “scaremongering”: “The pandemic is over, the law is superfluous.”
The FDP Council of States Matthias Michel, who spoke of a “freedom law”, sees things differently: Among other things, it is there to ensure that cross-border commuters can continue to enter Switzerland if there are restrictions at the borders if the situation worsens.
Fitness center owner Claude Ammann, on the other hand, is disappointed by the federal government’s corona policy: “Many companies have independently invested in security measures to prevent closures, but have not been heard from politicians.”
As a society, we have to protect the 200,000 vulnerable people in our country.
The view must be directed towards society as a whole, replied Tina Deplazes, Vice President of Die Junge Mitte. “There are 200,000 vulnerable people in our country. As a society, we have to protect them.” For example, the Covid law could oblige employers to ensure the protection of vulnerable people by allowing them to work from home. That could also further relieve the hospitals, according to Deplazes.
Instead of creating laws in advance, the healthcare system should be approached more holistically, complained SVP National Councilor Lukas Reimann. “The focus must be on providing medicines to those people who depend on them every day.”
The Covid-19 law is essential for this, argued GLP National Councilor Martin Bäumle. It creates the basis for vulnerable people to be able to obtain medicines from abroad that are not yet approved in Switzerland.
The electorate will decide on the extension of the Covid-19 law on June 18. In the event of a no to the proposal, the provisions would expire in December 2023, and in the event of a yes, as planned, in June 2024.