政一B 邱科翰 (9)

姓名 : 邱科翰

班級 : 政一B

學號 : 07114248

[標題] Swiss vote no in sovereignty referendum - early results, 25/11/18, BBC

[內文] (寫作當時此為最新消息, 持續更新中, 故文章為擷取而成)

Swiss voters appear to have rejected a proposal to give Swiss law precedence over international law and treaties, according to early projections from a national referendum.

Initial figures showed 67% voted against and 33% in favour, national broadcaster SRF said.

Critics said the proposal would have damaged the country's global standing.

A plan to subsidise farmers who do not remove their cows' horns also appears to have been rejected.

If confirmed, the rejection of the sovereignty proposal would be a major blow for the right-wing Swiss People's Party, which put it forward, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.

The proposal upset almost the whole of the political spectrum and could have affected Swiss relations with the European Union and even the United Nations, our correspondent adds.

United in opposition are the Swiss government, all major political parties bar one, and a coalition of 120 civil society organisations, from environmental groups to groups which support the elderly, the disabled, or refugees.

"It's a Trojan horse… it's not about saving democracy, it's about weakening fundamental rights in Switzerland," says Andrea Huber.

The historical roots to this vote are deeper than the EU though: neutral Switzerland has always been cautious of joining big international organisations: it did not join the United Nations until 2002, and has been slow to ratify major UN conventions like the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

One thing the Swiss do not really argue about is their system of direct democracy. Although turnout is sometimes low, people do not complain about how often they are called on to vote.

They even vote on the same issues more than once. Direct democracy here means anyone can put an idea to the people as long as they gather 100,000 signatures.

…

[相關憲法條文]

憲法第二條 : 中華民國之主權屬於國民全體。

憲法第十七條 : 人民有選舉，罷免，創制及複決之權。

憲法第一百二十九條 : 本憲法所規定之各種選舉，除本憲法別有規定外，以普通，平等，直接及無記名投票之方法行之。

憲法第一百三十六條 : 創制複決兩權之行使，以法律定之。

{相關法條}

公民投票法第一條 : 依據憲法主權在民之原則，為確保國民直接民權之行使，特制定本法。本法未規定者，適用其他法律之規定。

公民投票涉及原住民族權利者，不得違反原住民族基本法之規定。

公民投票法第二條 : 本法所稱公民投票，包括全國性及地方性公民投票。

全國性公民投票，依憲法規定外，其他適用事項如下：

一、法律之複決。

二、立法原則之創制。

三、重大政策之創制或複決。

地方性公民投票適用事項如下：

一、地方自治條例之複決。

二、地方自治條例立法原則之創制。

三、地方自治事項重大政策之創制或複決。

預算、租稅、薪俸及人事事項不得作為公民投票之提案。

公民投票法第四條 : 公民投票，以普通、平等、直接及無記名投票之方法行之。

公民投票法第七條 : 中華民國國民，除憲法另有規定外，年滿十八歲，未受監護宣告者，有公民投票權。

公民投票法第二十九條 : 公民投票案投票結果，有效同意票數多於不同意票，且有效同意票達投票權人總額四分之一以上者，即為通過。有效同意票未多於不同意票，或有效同意票數不足前項規定數額者，均為不通過。

公民投票法第三十二條 : 主管機關公告公民投票之結果起二年內，不得就同一事項重行提出。

同一事項之認定由主管機關為之。

…

心得評論：

Since Taiwan just held its national referendum and local elections last Saturday, it would only be normal if I wrote about another election that took place a day after, in the Swiss Confederation. 

The Swiss Confederation is one of, if not the most prominent example of direct democracy in the modern world, known to many as “the land of referendums”. While the Taiwanese law placed high requirements in order to prevent too many insignificant cases be put into a referendum, the Swiss law did the exact opposite. And that means as long as you gather 100,000 signatures, the case could be reviewed by citizens of the Confederation. Personally, I don’t think Taiwan should follow this policy. The Swiss Confederation has a population of less than nine million, while Taiwan has more than twenty-three million. Any referendum in Taiwan means a huge expense, and thus we could only afford the most serious issues. 

Direct democracy is a clear way of demonstrating “power of the people”, or what some might call “popular sovereignty”. In this case, voting on concerns about state sovereignty seemed all the more interesting. Put forward by the largest political party, and opposed by every single other, meant that this case was something far greater than your “usual Swiss referendum” (say, voting whether cows could keep their horns). Being THE neutral power that most people think of (because most people were dumb not knowing the Kingdom of Sweden), the Swiss Confederation is home to the Geneva Conventions, the basic laws of war and forerunner of international conventions, and the second-largest UN office. Because of that, placing Swiss sovereignty above international law might draw the doubt of foreign powers and question the nature of Swiss neutrality. In my opinion, I wished this referendum was rejected. The Confederation is one of the very few places where humans could actually sit down and talk conflicts through, and this very neutrality granted the Swiss a special place (and respect) on the international stage. That respect should be mutual, meaning while the international community uphold the permanent neutrality of the Confederation, the Confederation should respect international law as well.