The National Council sweeps the initiative after three hours of debate

The National Council rejected the initiative by 146 votes against, 14 for and 12 abstentions, a result that is not surprising considering the novelty of our proposal. The next step is consideration by the Commission on Social Security and Public Health of the States Council Thursday 8 and Friday, 9 October, and the vote by the States (see the attached open letter of information [1] we sent to the Commission). The sessions calendar shows it is entirely plausible that the initiative is submitted to popular vote already in June 2016.

146 against – 12 abstentions – 14 for the initiative
(The vote was on the suggestion of rejection emitted by the Commission)

• www.parlament.ch [2] (search for 'inconditionnel')" >Detail of the votes of the site of the Parliament (search for 'inconditionnel')

Hereafter extracts from the speech of M. Andreas Gross (Socialist/Zurich) at the National Council :

A popular initiative is always a matter emitted by a minority which is open to all, to all of society. If 100,000 people have signed an initiative, it is their right as we entered into discussion with them decently and we answer their question - not in the name of all, but only for us; because we are not as addressing a recommendation to the voter and do not make a final decision. This decent discussion assumes that one delves into the mind of another and that one starts from the premise that its proposal also has a logic. It is anything but responsible, Mr. Caroni, insinuating that his interlocutor lack of "spirit." The other equally minded and equally able to think that what we claim for ourselves. Do not give to another what one requires is fundamentally intolerant.

 What is being proposed here is a utopia. Utopia however, is neither an illusion nor a chimera. In view of our debate, I have the feeling that we are in fact totally overwhelmed. And even than what we've become makes us incapable of dealing with utopias. [...]

This is a different vision of society. The latter is no longer shaped by the performance, competition between individuals, the labor market - land with a constant struggle - but is marked by respect, since it guarantees for each other that the we wish for ourselves. In this sense, Mr. Graber, it is no question of either insanity or immorality, but of ethics, spirit and good citizenship, much more than you can imagine. This is a completely different structure of society, in which we also saw at work - I'll be back soon on this - as it releases the work of the stress. This is the essential point. Nobody should live in fear of subsistence. Since the latter is ensured, we can work in a totally different way, more free and independent. This leads above all - this is the decisive point - a transfer of power from capital to labor in the sense that the worker can choose. It is not mandatory to do what does not make sense. For example, the rationalization will progress. The work that has no meaning will no longer be needed. This is no longer the capital, via the performance or otherwise, imposes its law. Every individual has freedom of decision. That is why it is a revolutionary proposal, which completely changes the foundation of society [...]

 There are arguments that we work so much that we do not even come to think, that we do not think anymore on why we worked and that the society of work harm much more human - and also did enormous damage – than are aware of those who have previously sung their own praises.

Since I have the opportunity, I would still insist that, for me, the main argument is that the initiative involves a democratization of democracy. Equal opportunities will increase sharply if people no longer live in fear and have more time to deal with political and social issues in general. [...]

Attachment: 

Information letter to the SSSP-E Commission [3]