The national Council maintains its counter-proposal to the group responsibility initiative of the founders. Thus, the issue remains with the Council of States, because this does not want to regulate by the national Council decided liability.
The councils are still far from agreement. The national Council decided on Wednesday with 102 against 91 votes for, four abstentions, for his own and against the interest of a minority absorbed the concept of the Council of States. The Council of States and of the Federal Council to regulate a counter-proposal without liability.
no to the Initiative
The group’s responsibility for initiative recommends that the national Council for the rejection. He decided this on Wednesday with 105 to 83 votes in favour and 9 abstentions. To the Beat Flat (GLP/AG) requested a direct counter-proposal, the majority has not occurred. The Council of States had decided on the recommendation for a ” no ” already.
The national Council postponed the vote in June 2019 to decide first on the indirect counter-proposal, which he discussed on Wednesday a third Time. The changes in the law, now go once again to the Council of States.
The controversial liability rule is at the core of the Initiative: corporations should be held accountable for child labour on cocoa plantations in Burkina Faso, polluted rivers in the Congo or poisoned by farmers to cotton fields in India.
“Just
” are For the discussion of two concepts for an indirect counter-proposal, a rules limited and without liability. At first, his own, the national Council, the second of the Federal Council brought in as a response to the game. The Council of States held to this concept.
SP, Green, GLP, BDP and EVP wanted to stay on the path of the national Council, and thanks to the support from the other parties. “Who is injured abroad, human rights and environmental regulations, child labor does not tolerate, and land lines destroyed, has to pay,” said Ursula Schneider shaker (SP/FR).
of recourse and damages should be circumscribed in the counter-proposal is clear, said Beat Flat (GLP/AG). The Greens agreed with the concept, even though liability and access to justice to the Initiative would be severely curtailed, as Sibel Arslan (BS) said. It is first of all a special arbitration had to take place procedure. Representatives of the majority also argued that the initiative’s backers have signaled their desire to withdraw, should prevail, the counter-proposal of the national Council in the debate.
“strength”
members of the SVP, FDP and the middle group wanted to follow the Council of States. In their eyes, the Version of the majority of the Initiative comes to a close. Speaker: Philipp Matthias Bregy CVP (/VS) said, the Council of States had presented a balanced and internationally supported solution. The group liability if it did not exist in other States.
With the Version of the Council of States would create clear rules and transparency and the rules tightened, said Bregy. The help to strengthen Switzerland as a location. With the Version of the majority of these weakened would. Christian Lüscher (FDP/GE), called the counter-proposal of the majority, a “soft version of the Initiative”.
The SVP was actually no counter-proposal. “We have to try about foreign policy to improve the Situation of the local people,” said Pirmin Schwander (SZ). Initiative and counter-proposal could do nothing.
companies enforce in the world is useless if corrupt governments that would beat everything into the Wind, argued Schwander. His request, the Council rejected with 103 against 72 votes of the SVP and the FDP. Many members of the middle group, abstained.
risk a solo run
Minister of justice, Karin Keller-Sutter warned in vain in front of a “solo run”, the Switzerland risk with the concept of the national Council and the Initiative. With the concept of the Council of States by contrast, Switzerland “international could unlock”.
The national Council would implement the Initiative as far as possible, said Keller-Sutter, and the Initiative wouldn’t come then to the vote. “The Federal Council sees the state of a political than a little questionable.” The government strongly opposes the Initiative, but not against the vote. Because: “The debate is necessary.”
The deadline for the treatment of group responsibility initiative runs on 10. April. The possibility of a conditional withdrawal of the Initiative is to be maintained, must be to advise against the proposal in the current Session at the end. (nag/sda)
Created: 04.03.2020, 17:23 PM
