Switzerland to re-run referendum because “voters were not given full information”

Switzerland has overturned a nationwide referendum after it was found that voters were not given full information.

The Swiss, who run numerous referendums to dictate government policy, held the poll in February 2016 to decide whether married couples and co-habiting partners should pay the same tax.

Voters rejected the proposal, with 50.8 per cent against and 49.2 per cent in favour.

But the supreme court has now voided the result on the grounds that voters were not given full information, and the vote must be re-run.

People have been quick to point out parallels to Britain’s vote to leave the European Union.

Not only did the campaign to Leave break electoral law, many of its promises have since been proved to be either inaccurate or completely false.

Claims that the NHS will receive £350 million a week have been disproved, as has Turkey’s accession to EU and any notion of a positive economic outcome.  

The Swiss will go back to the polls after the Swiss government told voters just 80,000 of married couples were paying more tax than couples living together.

The true figure was almost half a million, the government later said.


When did we convince ourselves that having a vote is undemocratic?

Since you’re here …

Real, independent, investigative journalism is in alarming decline. It costs a lot to produce. Many publications facing an uncertain future can no longer afford to fund it. This means journalists are losing the ability to hold the rich and powerful to account.

We do not charge or put articles behind a paywall. If you can, please show your appreciation for our free content by donating whatever you think is fair to help keep TLE growing.

Every penny we collect from donations supports vital investigative and independent journalism. You can also help us grow by inviting your friends to follow us on social media.

Donate Now Button

Related Posts

Economic growth is an unnecessary evil, Jacinda Ardern is right to deprioritise it
Theresa May under pressure over blocking security services probe into Arron Banks Brexit campaign millions
The British Government has ruined my life

9 Responses

  1. charlie

    I have been on the losing side of many referendums over the years . It hurts and its hard to take but the idea that any referendum result should be ignored really irritates me .

    There is a worrying school of thought among European Unionists that if an EU referendum is lost its simply because the public were misinformed and consequently another referendum must be held or the vote should be ignored . The Nice and Lisbon referendums in Ireland and the recent Brexit referendum in Britain are prime examples of this school of thinking. It can never be the case that actually , maybe the the public were fully informed but simply didn’t agree with the treaty etc and voted accordingly .

    In relation to the Brexit referendum , there was a big push by European Unionists for either a second referendum or simply for the public vote to be ignored based on the reasoning that the public must have been misinformed .

    It is the nature of referendum campaigns that things are said which may or may not be true , The time to address these points is during the campaign . Both sides are given plenty of opportunity during the campaign to challenge the other sides arguments and to present their stall to the public .In addition , the public have plenty of opportunity during a campaign to research the facts for themselves and vote accordingly . To argue that a referendum should be re-run on the basis that the losing side failed to challenge an argument or raise an issue which they should have would lead to infinite numbers of referendums .

    The EU remain campaign were no strangers to untruths . For example , the remain campaign repeated over and over again that young people wouldn’t be able to go abroad and study and that it would shut down so many doors for them , this is simply not true , UNESCO statistics show that most foreign students studying inside the EU actually come outside the EU , which means that a Britain outside the EU would result in even greater opportunity for young people in Britain to study in other EU states if they so desired which most dont want to anyway .

    Democracy is a fragile thing . Once you cross the line and decide to ignore the first Democratic Decision taken by the people , you have a democracy in name only and are into some other form of government.

    In the 1932 elections in Germany , the National Socialist German Workers Party became the largest party in the Reichstag . While in office they went about dismantling the democratic processes in order to impose their will on the people . I cant help but draw parallels with these people and the European Unionists of today who are taking control in a similar manner and using the same methods of control along the way.

  2. lee

    In comparison???…..an entire economy of countries v one country….versus whether the married should get taxed the same or not? I cannot believe you are really trying to make this comparison. Then again the remainers are desparate people.

    1. mark whaymand

      well said Lee 🙂 ha ha even the bus said”they could give 350 to the NHS if we leave ” yes “could” not will but i’ll guess we’ll have to wait once we have left ?

  3. Jack

    The “leave” campaign comprised a loose coalition which only agreed on one thing, the need to leave the EU. As a result, the “leave” campaign didn’t expound any vision for the future outside the EU, because to have done so would have likely have alienated as many voters as it attracted. Instead, it toook the line that after leaving there would be a democratic debate on the way forward.
    This has proven to be a great frustration to the “remainers” who have nothing to find fault with. They can’t list the broken promises, because the “leave” campaign didn’t make any.
    We know this for a fact, because if they had made any promise, the “remain” campaigners would have denounced them saying that the leadership of the “leave” campaign were not in power, had no prospect of being in power (David Cameron having declared his intention to stay in post no matter what the referendum result might be), and therefore were in no position to deliver on their promise. Then they’d never have shut up about it.
    This didn’t happen, so we can be assured that the “leave” campaign didn’t actually make any promises.
    (What was that on the side of Boris’s bus? It was a suggestion. No native English speaker could possibly call it a promise).

  4. Tim Staffell

    The ‘democratic principle’ is predicated on the fact that the electorate cannot be in possession of (or fully comprehend) the fundamental implications of any piece of legislation, unless it is so simple as to be self evident. Whining because a vote was elicited after false information was syndicated is to ignore history. We wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq if the truth had been widespread; nor half the wars in history. Complaining because democracy can be ‘subverted’ by liars is naivety on a colossal scale

Leave a Reply