You're not even Swiss, why do you interfere?

Uh, because it applies to us too?...

So we know what we are talking about...

Les dispositions transitoires de la Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 19991 sont modifiées comme suit:

Art. 197, ch. 9 (nouveau)

9. Disposition transitoire directement applicable ad art. 121 (Séjour et établissement des étrangers)

1 Les dispositions suivantes sont appliquées en vue d'assurer le renvoi effectif des étrangers criminels:

I. Expulsion

1. Si un étranger est condamné pour l'une des infractions énumérées ci-après, et quelle que soit la quotité de la peine qui a été prononcée à son encontre, le tribunal ou le ministère public prononcent son expulsion du territoire suisse:

a. meurtre (art. 111 du code pénal, CP2), assassinat (art. 112 CP), meurtre passionnel (art. 113 CP);

b. lésions corporelles graves (art. 122 CP), mise en danger de la vie d'autrui (art. 129 CP);

c. effraction, entendue comme la réalisation cumulative des éléments constitutifs des infractions de vol (art. 139 CP), de dommages à la propriété (art. 144 CP) et de violation de domicile (art. 186 CP);

d. vol qualifié (art. 139, ch. 2 et 3, CP), brigandage (art. 140 CP), escroquerie par métier (art. 146, al. 2, CP), extorsion qualifiée (art. 156, ch. 2, 3 et 4, CP), recel par métier (art. 160, ch. 2, CP);

e. escroquerie (art. 146 CP) à l'aide sociale et aux assurances sociales, et abus en matière d’aide sociale et d’assurances sociales (ch. V.1);

f. traite d'êtres humains (art. 182 CP), séquestration et enlèvement qualifiés (art. 184 CP), prise d'otage (art. 185 CP);

g. contrainte sexuelle (art. 189 CP), viol (art. 190 CP), actes d’ordre sexuel commis sur une personne incapable de discernement ou de résistance (art. 191 CP), encouragement à la prostitution (art. 195 CP);

h. génocide (art. 264 CP), crimes contre l'humanité (art. 264a CP), crimes de guerre (art. 264b à 264j CP);

i. infraction aux art. 19, al. 2, ou 20, al. 2, de la loi du 3 octobre 1951 sur les stupéfiants (LStup)3.

2. Si un étranger est condamné pour l'une des infractions énumérées ci-après, et s'il a déjà été condamné au cours des dix années précédentes par un jugement entré en force à une peine pécuniaire ou privative de liberté, le tribunal ou le ministère public prononcent son expulsion du territoire suisse:

a. lésions corporelles simples (art. 123 CP), exposition (art. 127 CP), rixe (art. 133 CP), agression (art. 134 CP);

b. violation de domicile (art. 186 CP) en relation avec les infractions de dommages à la propriété (art. 144 CP) ou de vol (art. 139, ch.1, CP);

c. abus de confiance qualifié (art. 138, ch. 2, CP), utilisation frauduleuse d'un ordinateur par métier (art. 147, al. 2, CP), abus de cartes-chèques ou de cartes de crédit par métier (art. 148, al. 2, CP), usure par métier (art. 157, ch. 2, CP);

d. séquestration et enlèvement (art. 183 CP);

e. actes d'ordre sexuel avec des enfants (art. 187, ch. 1, CP), actes d'ordre sexuel avec des personnes dépendantes (art. 188, ch. 1, CP), actes d'ordre sexuel avec des personnes hospitalisées, détenues ou prévenues (art. 192 CP), abus de la détresse (art. 193 CP), pornographie (art. 197, ch. 3, CP);

f. incendie intentionnel (art. 221, al. 1 et 2, CP), explosion intentionnelle (art. 223, ch. 1, CP), emploi, avec dessein délictueux, d'explosifs ou de gaz toxiques (art. 224 CP), fabriquer, dissimuler et transporter des explosifs ou des gaz toxiques (art. 226 CP);

g. fabrication de fausse monnaie (art. 240, al. 1, CP), falsification de la monnaie (art. 241, al. 1, CP);

h. provocation publique au crime ou à la violence (art. 259 CP), participation ou soutien à une organisation criminelle (art. 260ter CP), mise en danger de la sécurité publique au moyen d'armes (art. 260quater CP), financement du terrorisme (art. 260quinquies CP);

i. violence ou menace contre les autorités et les fonctionnaires (art. 285 CP), rupture de ban (art. 291 CP);

j. dénonciation calomnieuse (art. 303, ch. 1, CP), blanchiment d'argent qualifié (art. 305bis, ch. 2, CP), faux témoignage, faux rapport ou fausse traduction en justice (art. 307, al. 1 et 2, CP);

k. infraction intentionnelle aux art. 115, al. 1 et 2, 116, al. 3, ou 118, al. 3, de la loi fédérale du 16 décembre 2005 sur les étrangers4;

l. infraction aux art. 19, al. 1, ou 20, al. 1, LStup.

3. Si, au cours des dix années précédentes, il a été ouvert contre l'intéressé une procédure pénale qui n'est pas encore close au moment où est prononcée la condamnation pour l’une des infractions visées au ch. 2, l'expulsion du territoire suisse est prononcée dès que l'intéressé est condamné par un jugement entré en force à une peine pécuniaire ou privative de liberté.

4. L'expulsion du territoire suisse peut ne pas être prononcée si l'acte a été commis en état de défense excusable (art. 16 CP) ou de nécessité excusable (art. 18 CP).

5. L’étranger contre qui a été prononcée une décision d’expulsion du territoire suisse entrée en force est privé, indépendamment de son statut, de son titre de séjour et de tous ses autres droits à séjourner ou à retourner en Suisse.

II. Délai de départ et interdiction d'entrée

1. Lorsque le tribunal ou le ministère public prononce une expulsion du territoire suisse, il impartit à l'intéressé un délai de départ et assortit sa décision d'une interdiction d'entrée pour une durée comprise entre 5 et 15 ans.

2. Si l'intéressé a été condamné pour l’une des infractions visées au ch. I.1, la durée de l'interdiction d'entrée ne peut être inférieure à 10 ans.

3. En cas de récidive, la durée de l'interdiction d'entrée est de 20 ans.

III. Exécution

1. L'autorité cantonale compétente procède à l'expulsion du territoire suisse dès que la condamnation est entrée en force ou, selon le cas, dès que la peine a été purgée.

2. L'expulsion du territoire suisse peut être suspendue si des motifs impérieux au sens de l'art. 25, al. 2 et 3, de la Constitution fédérale s'y opposent, mais uniquement de manière temporaire.

3. Lorsqu'elle prend sa décision, l'autorité cantonale compétente présume que ne contrevient pas à l'art. 25, al. 2 et 3, de la Constitution fédérale, une expulsion vers un État que le Conseil fédéral a désigné comme un État sûr au sens de l'art. 6a, al. 2, de la loi du 26 juin 1998 sur l'asile5.

4. S’il est fait valoir des motifs impérieux au sens de l'art. 25, al. 2 et 3, de la Constitution fédérale, l'autorité cantonale compétente décide dans un délai de 30 jours. Sa décision peut faire l'objet d'un recours devant le tribunal cantonal compétent. Celui-ci décide dans un délai de 30 jours à compter du dépôt du recours ; sa décision est définitive.

IV. Relation avec le droit international

Les dispositions qui régissent l'expulsion du territoire suisse et leurs modalités d'exécution priment les normes du droit international qui ne sont pas impératives.6

V. Abus en matière d’aide sociale et d’assurances sociales

1. Quiconque aura, par des indications fausses ou incomplètes, par la dissimulation de faits déterminants ou par tout autre moyen, perçu ou tenté de percevoir indûment pour soi ou pour autrui des prestations de l'aide sociale ou d'une assurance sociale, sera puni d’une peine privative de liberté de cinq ans au plus ou d’une peine pécuniaire, à moins que l’acte ne soit passible d’une peine plus lourde en vertu d’une autre disposition.

2. Dans les cas de peu de gravité, la peine pourra être l’amende.

2 L'al. 1 est directement applicable.

______________________

1 RS 101

2 RS 311.0

3 RS 812.121

4 RS 142.20

5 RS 142.31

6 L'initiative populaire du 28 décembre 2012 "Pour le renvoi effectif des étrangers criminels (initiative de mise en oeuvre)" (FF 2012 6873) a été déclarée partiellement valable par l'Assemblée fédérale. L'art. 197, ch. 9, al.1, ch. IV, 2ème phrase de la Cst. proposé est non valable et n'est pas soumis au vote. La phrase a la teneur suivante: "Par normes impératives du droit international, s'entendent exclusivement l'interdiction de la torture, du génocide, de la guerre d'agression, de l'esclavage ainsi que l'interdiction de refouler une personne vers un Etat où elle risque d'être torturée ou tuée (FF 2015 2487).

So, it requires conviction first? The person will be able to go through a trial and persumably defend himself/herself?

I just find the categorical deportation without trial part very disturbing. If that's not the case, then one has less to worry about.

the cost of maintaining a prisoner per month in switzerland is sfr. 20'000. 

"Marcel Riesen, head of canton Zurich’s juvenile court, puts the average cost of one person in closed detention at CHF20,000 a month"

there are 10'000 foreigners per year, that would be put in prison or deported. the savings would be enormous. (2.4 billion swiss francs) per year.!!

at present, the cost is paid by the taxpayer, i.e. you and me

i think good ridance to foreign criminals who break the law, create civil unrest and are a significant financial burden on the state. 

the savings could be better spent on other needed areas.

so, what are your thoughts?

of course it requires a conviction in a court of law.

it would even be possible with a good defense to reduce the act from criminal to something less.

maybe!

Like most Swiss, it's the "criminels" that I don't like in "étrangers criminels", certainly not the "étrangers". Believe me, if we could find a way to expell the Swiss criminals too, I would be the first one to sign the initiative...

in france they used to do that. send them to devil's island off the coast of french guiana.

Outsourcing could be a great solution too. Lots of countries would probably consider doing the job for a much cheaper price...

For example these criminals home countries

I am hesitant to enter this discusion as I know very little, but in reading the text provided by Cauistik above, these passages would raise my concerns. It is always the details buried within text that appears reasonable that always end up being used in unanticipated ways, once a fertile ground has been created by tapping on people's fears and prejudices against "the others":

2. Si un étranger est condamné pour l'une des infractions énumérées ci-après, et s'il a déjà été condamné au cours des dix années précédentes par un jugement entré en force à une peine pécuniaire ou privative de liberté, le tribunal ou le ministère public prononcent son expulsion du territoire suisse:

[IF I GET IT RIGHT, THIS DEALS WITH PAST INFRACTIONS, FOR WHICH SOMEONE ALREADY HAS PAID, SO THE "SAVINGS" ARGUMENT WOULD NOT APPLY. Please correct me if I am factually wrong.]

c. abus de confiance qualifié (art. 138, ch. 2, CP), utilisation frauduleuse d'un ordinateur par métier (art. 147, al. 2, CP), abus de cartes-chèques ou de cartes de crédit par métier (art. 148, al. 2, CP), usure par métier (art. 157, ch. 2, CP);

e. .......pornographie (art. 197, ch. 3, CP);

h. provocation publique au crime ou à la violence (art. 259 CP), participation ou soutien à une organisation criminelle (art. 260ter CP), ......

i. violence ou menace contre les autorités et les fonctionnaires (art. 285 CP), rupture de ban (art. 291 CP);

[THE ISSUES HIGHLIGHTED IN C, E, H, AND L, CAN BE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION AND USED TO SUPRESS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. MANY FOREIGNERS HOLD PROTESTS IN GENEVA AGAINST CONDITIONS IN THEIR COUNTRIES BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE UN HERE. WOULD "H" POTENTIALLY APPLY TO THEM?]

In general, the argument of the costs of incarceration for Switzerland has another side: why should the countries of origin be saddled with the costs of incarceration of someone found guilty (if there is indeed a prior process) under Swiss legislation and judicial processes?

It is the mentality of separating foreigners and nationals, in Switzerland and elsewhere, that is troubling. We often embrace initiatives that are promoted under the idea that the distinction is between criminals and us. Only to find out later that what constitutes a crime is sometimes decided, now or in the future, by authorities that have their own idea of what that is. Look not only at history, but at the current reality in some countries.

I think cross-border collaboration in preventing and dealing intelligently with the causes and commission of crimes is better than trying to "export" the problem. This initiative is also a reflection of a very pernicious idea. In 1996, Robert Dole, then US candidate for President, claimed that the cause of crime was simple: criminals. That mentality led to the passage of absurd legislation that has led to the US having 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners as George Will points out here, and to one per 108 US adults being in jail. I encouage you to read the piece by Will, with whom I do not often agree, but greatly respect.

Beyond what it actually does, this initiative helps promote that mentality.

I look forward to reading anything that will help us all better understand this initiative, but at first glance, it looks troubling to anyone who cares about the state of humanity, and of our humanity, wherever it is undermined.

As per the costs, I'm not advocating that the countries of origin should pay. We would, but the price would be cheaper.

For one, there's a difference between the impact it may have on the people of your kind on one hand, and your (in)capacity to vote on the other hand? Are the Swiss people still sovereign in their own country? What would happened if foreigners started protesting in India or Singapore? They'd probably get deported.

Now you're saying "because it applies to you" - so you're a criminal, or you feel like a potential one? That's interesting. Or is this a related to a tribal issue in any way? In my case I'll be so glad when the foreign offenders are out of this country - including those from my country, both for the sake of my reputation and my overall safety - but again I'm only a law-abiding citizen here.

Oh dear lord.

What has the Lord to do with it?

You pro third-world immigration liberals are so brainwashed, I suggest you go the higher road and try read this for a change: http://lesobservateurs.ch/2016/02/04/votations-28-2-2016-expulsions-des-criminels-etrangers-editorial-de-r-koeppel-die-weltwoche/

It's not so much about the foreign scumbags that need to be deported immediately ; it's rather the ability for the people of this country, the last direct democracy on this planet to have the last word vs. the corrupt hyperclass politicians that will never support the consequences of their (lack of) decisions, especially when it comes to third-world immigration.

I don't think it would be right to expel someone for some of the reasons mentioned above, there are frauds and frauds, and some can be minor. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone deserves a second chance, everyone can have regrets and change.

This law would like to eject from switzerland, a stranger, born in Switzerland, who raised a familly here, work for an entreprise, bought a house, payed taxes , studied here , somebody in whom Switzerland has invested. And this law would like to expuls him of switzerland because he did a speed excess on the highway, and another time he screamed to loud an evening when he was drunk?

This law is not a law, but an insult to all strangers that helped building this country. Shame on UDC.

the definitions are quite clear : rape, homicide, robbery, assault, major fraud, and benefit cheats ( abuse of the social services ) 

people who enter this country are supposed to follow the laws if they want to stay here. those born here who commit the above mentioned crimes and have not been naturalized have only themselves to blame. after all, they do (did) have the opportunity to do so. 

you really can't make a case by invoking the "human rights" card to allow criminals who have come here from abroad to have the luxury of swiss prison, and be deported afterwards (which is presently the case.

perhaps more scrutiny is required beforehand when they are allowed to reside here. furthemore, it is known that punishment is not a deterrent for criminals, so if they are possessed to do the crime, they are most likely not concerned about where they will be punished.

No Man! You need to inform yourself before saying bullshit!

http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/videos-en-bref/video/simonetta-sommaruga-un-voleur-de-biere-dans-le-meme-sac-quun-violeur?id=7435770

With this law, a guy that steals a beer will be punished as a guy that raped.

and same for someone that make a speed excess!

http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/videos-en-bref/video/christian-luescher-un-exces-de-vitesse-suivi-dune-rixe-engendre-le-renvoi-dun-etranger?id=7435751

http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/videos-en-bref/video/christian-luescher-un-exces-de-vitesse-suivi-dune-rixe-engendre-le-renvoi-dun-etranger?id=7435751

your video links are inflamatory and inexact. read this excerpt from Swissinfo:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/-initiative_literal-implementation-causes-controversy/41863564

here is a quote

"The offences include homicide, rape, robbery, human or drug trafficking, as well as abuse of the welfare system.

With the initiative, several specifications and amendments, such as arson and counterfeiting will be added to the catalogue of offences."

remember also, that only after a court conviction would the criminal be deported rather than serving jail time in switzerland. ( after which, they would be deported according to present law ) 

http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/infrarouge/video/renvoi-des-criminels-etrangers-volonte-populaire-bafouee-?id=7430763

interesting debate covering many of the points of view

Come on man, it's la conseillère fédérale Simonetta Sommaruga  and le conseiller national PLR genevois Christian Lüscher.

On rts. 

As a foreigner living in CH, I seriously don't see the problem with this initiative. There are so many "civilised" countries where this is already applied, and I really don't have an issue with it. It's just again because it's the UDC that so many people get angry and upset before even thinking... OK - their campaign is pretty inflamatory, but that's their whole point, they get the attention, people start discussing.... So provided the conviction is handed down by a court of law, and is on the list as mentioned by Epicure, me as a foreigner have no problem with it at all. There is the law.. you have to abide by it. If you fuck it up... goodbye (no second chances, it's not lalaland here) !!!! E.g. in an other "expat paradise" Dubai, there is Shariah law... you wouldn't even have this discussion there, so let's put this into perspective a little. And perhaps allow other political flows a little bit of space as well.... As soon as someone is UDC here, they get absolutely shot down, whilst most of us here are not even Swiss, or have a right to vote in CH. I wouldn't be in their camp either, but I do appreciate a healthy discussion. Just "blacksheeping" UDC is just as wrong.... 

There is an underlying myth in Switzerland that it is only the foreigners who commit crimes. Some of the biggest criminals in Switzerland are the Swiss bankers. They are also very good at money laundering and will turn a blind eye to a dictators's crimes against humanity as long as he has enough dosh. Money also protects rich criminals such as American billionaire Marc Rich who fled racketeering and tax evasion charges in the US and was welcomed with open arms to Switzerland. I actually agree that foreign criminals should be deported for heinous crimes but I am apprehensive that if this law should go through, it will be used unfairly to prosecute foreigners who have committed minor crimes. 

By the way, here is what Patrick Odier ( vice president of Economiesuisse ) thinks about this law:

I'm sure that there as many Swiss criminals as there are foreign criminals.... but that's not the subject of the debate. You can't throw out one of your own citizens, but you can with foreigners... And when it comes to Mr. Marc Rich - he didn't break any mayor Swiss laws (note the difference in tax evasion and tax fraud in those days). You might call him a criminal, I admire the guy for having the balls to do business like that (the ethical side of it is a different discussion though) but again, he never broke any Swiss law. Needless to say I admire the guy, as he was a brilliant businessman,  and you bringing up his example is totally wrong. He might have broken many US laws, but he didn't break any mayor Swiss one. Also, please note that Mr. Rich passed away a couple of years ago.... But again succes always makes others jealous... 

"Based on 2014 figures supplied by the Federal Statistical Office, many offences are committed by so-called criminal tourists and foreigners who have not registered with the authorities. Proportionally, foreigners who are resident in Switzerland and who have registered with the authorities are accused of – and convicted for – around twice as many crimes as the Swiss resident population. " from swissinfo.ch

food for thought, no?

I'm just replying so that I can unsubscribe from the spam on this thread. This thread is officially exposing the retarded side of people in glocals with the shoot-the-remaining-good-foot mentally

So what you are basically saying is as long as a person does not break any Swiss laws although he may have broken laws in his country, please let him in. How strange. Anyway lets not get bogged down in this as we need to stick to the topic.  

Personally, I believe that we need to look at the statistics with a pinch of salt as statistics can be easily manipulated and it depends on who is collecting the data and how it is collected. 

Well, if anyone read the booklet that comes with the voting material (if you can read French and have the right to vote that is. . .) the laws to deport criminal foreigners are already in place since a few years.

What this initiative does is graft the whole thing right into the Constitution so that both tribunals and the Congress are automatically bypassed when it comes to execution. In other words and because the actual laws are already in place, the only difference this will make is tie the hands of a judge when it comes to the "tier 2" minor infractions comitted by foreigners who would normally not be deported (as the article above says, maybe even 2nd, 3rd generation foreigners. . .). I'm all for Europe not being so "accueillant" to immigrants as there's only so much resources to go round but this is just silly.

So. . . if it looks like a gaga ideologial-emotional outburst against foreigners it's because it is - and it's no coincidence that if you look at the official positions of the main 7 Swiss political parties, on this initiative, everyone except the UDC is going: "NO", "NO", "NO", "NO". . .

So. . . the 28th, as a Swiss citizen which I am, I'm voting "no".

Proportionally, foreigners who are resident in Switzerland and who have registered with the authorities are accused of – and convicted for – around twice as many crimes as the Swiss resident population. " from swissinfo.ch

food for thought, no?

epicure_Today 10:56

Yes, epicure food for thought, thought being the operative word here.  You clearly swallowed what you were being fed without giving it half a thought. First, the caption in the figures state: "Percentage of all foreigners resident in Switzerland aged over ten [emphasis added]... convicted of a crime, compared with the percentage of Swiss people convicted of a crime."Now if that isn't a manipulation of statistics, I don't know what is. Basically they are jacking up the percentage on the foreigners side by taking in account ony those aged over 10 and comparing it with all swiss regardless of age. By the way, the percentages are a massive 0.6% vs 0.3%. With those kinds of figures, any slight manipulation can magnify the differences.

Second, being accused and even being convicted of a crime could reflect being caught in higher percentages (as a result of profiling) and/or being at a disadvantage in defending yourself in court, not necesarily a difference in the percentage committing a crime. Did you ever notice that foreigners, some of them complaining in these forums, do not know there are speeding cameras in the autoroute, whereas I have seen plenty of drivers in the autoroute routinely slowing down where they know they are located and speeding again once they are past the cameras? Both are wrong, but some are good at breaking the law with impunity, whereas others aren't.

Third, you seem to have stop reading where it stopped being useful to your prejudices. The next paragraph in the article read:

"However, does it make sense to classify offenders by the colour of their passport? No, according to André Kuhn, a professor of criminology. For him, the relevant factors are gender, age, socio-economic status and education. Statistically it is men under 30 with little income and a low level of education who are most likely to be convicted. 

If nationality is to be considered a factor, Kuhn says it should be for migrants from conflict countries who have been “brutalised” by the experiences of war."

The greatest threat to Switzerland, Europe and what is left of a civilized world are not "foreign criminals," but the rising tide of xenophobia, intolerance and tribalism.

Several years ago, but it did not change: 92% of Geneva main prison are foreigners

http://www.ghi.ch/le-journal/la-une/champ-dollon-92-des-prevenus-sont-etrangers

OK, are you willing to take an honest look in the mirror?

Close your eyes and visualize what the people who are being refered to look like. Do they look Italian? German? Portuguese? French? Half of all foreigners living in Switzerland are from those countries. Read here. 81.5% are from Europe. 9.9% from Asia, 4.34% from Africa and 3.95% from the American continent, of which almost 1% from the USA. Yet, the UDC, in their 6 year campaign to make electoral gains by using xenophobia, have used different versions of a poster in which a white (swiss) sheep is kicking out a black (foreigner) sheep.

On my second day here 9 years ago, I had my briefcase stolen by two guys. I went to the police to report it, and they asked me to describe the guy who distracted me while the other one took my briefcase from my car. They challenged my description of the guy, because he was a white european. They kept asking me questions to make him look darker and non-swiss. This is not to generalize or to pick on the swiss police, but it made a deep impression because I arrived with idealized expectations about Switzerland. It is because it is a very humane society that it would be a shame if one of the negative streaks that runs in human nature, the product of centuries of tribalism, continues to gain ground, fueled by the UDC's cynical campaigns.

I guess we can start talking about capital punishment in the us.. Sounds like there is nothing wrong with it. And no one is even arguing about it.

Nothing wrong with talking, or with capital punishment ? 

As you requested, my son:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/21/pope_francis_calls_for_a_global_ban_on_the_death_penalty.html

and in USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/21/pope-death-penalty/80707988/

My brother used to live in the UK and drove a porsche, was a graduate of LSE and worked for Goldman Sachs. He was pulled over numerous times by the very intelligent Briitish bobbies who assumed he must have stolen it simply because he was black. By targetting people from certain ethnic backgrounds, the police statistics were of course skewed. This is why I say all stastistics should be looked at with a pinch of salt. They often don't tell the whole story.

Since the vote is this weekend, I thought I'd post a last thing.

> it's rather the ability for the people of this country, the last direct democracy on this planet to have the last word vs. the corrupt hyperclass politicians

Thinking that these referendums allow the people "to have the last word" shows a remarkable naivety.  Rather, populist and demagogic parties such as UDC exploit these referendums to push on the fear of people and put forward their xenophobic decisions. As a result, it's the "corrupt hyperclass politicians" who decide once again.

The big problem with the current initiative is, as denounced by Amnesty International, that it is against the European Convention of Human Rights.  Therefore, if it is accepted, each time Switzerland applies it, it will be fined by the European Court.  But of course, UDC kind of forgot to tell the Swiss people about that!

The same goes with the shameful and ridiculous vote of 9 February 2014 to restore immigration quotas for all foreigners, EU immigrants included.  The big problem is that this vote is inapplicable. 

You see, the free circulation of EU citizens was established in the Bilateral Agreements of 1999 between EU and CH and - by mutual accord - if any clause of the Agreements is denounced, all of them cease to apply.  Therefore, if Switzerland cancels it, all other agreements - air traffic, road traffic, trade barriers, etc - are canceled, meaning that Switzerland will be unable to fly planes, send its citizens, and sell its goods in EU land! 

And of course, UDC didn't tell Swiss citizens about this neither.  Why do you think the Federal Parliament is so reluctant to apply the vote?  Because it would completely isolate Switzerland and cause a massive crisis.

So, when you are going to vote this Sunday, think well about all consequences of your vote, and don't let yourself get swindled by the lies of ruthless political parties.

Aaaand... the Swiss people rejected the proposal with a majority of 58.9%.

Up yours, UDC.