Köppel accepts vote defeat Urges neutrality debate

Sep 27

Weltwoche’s Roger Köppel accepts the clear defeat of the strict-neutrality initiative he supported and corrects his description of the seventy-percent rejection to refer to votes cast rather than all eligible voters. He argues that opponents also invoke neutrality, so the result settles neither its definition nor the wider debate. He advocates perpetual, armed and economically comprehensive neutrality, opposes sanctions as involvement in economic wars, and predicts proximity to war could change Swiss opinion. He urges stronger arguments and attention to how other countries perceive Switzerland. These are his positions and expectations, with no constitutional change or official policy reversal announced.

Vremya reports about 70 percent voting against the September 27 initiative and turnout of 47 percent. It describes proposed restrictions on sanctions and NATO participation and criticizes Switzerland's adoption of EU Russia sanctions. The result rejects a stricter constitutional formulation; it does not mean Switzerland has joined NATO or abandoned its existing neutrality policy. The government's position that its current policy remains neutral is included in the broadcast. In his September 28 post-vote commentary, Köppel acknowledges that a majority rejected the stricter constitutional formulation. He argues that the result makes Switzerland less safe and raises war risks, while explicitly recognizing that opponents of the initiative also profess support for neutrality. He predicts that debate over restoring what he calls full neutrality will continue. Those risk assessments and predictions are his views, not a demonstrated legal abandonment of neutrality or an agreed new policy. AUF1 reports a 70.2 percent No vote and says no canton approved the initiative. Correspondent Stefan Thöny distinguishes rejection of its strict definition from rejection of neutrality itself, citing a 2026 survey with 85 percent support for neutrality. He recounts supporters' and opponents' arguments, including disputed criticism of Christoph Blocher's financial interests, and predicts pressure for closer EU and NATO cooperation. He explicitly says future votes must show whether this result implies support for such ties. These forecasts and allegations are attributed, not consequences already approved by voters. On September 29, Köppel again accepts the initiative's defeat, giving rounded shares of 70 percent against and 30 percent for. He explicitly corrects his denominator from eligible voters to those who cast ballots. He says opponents also support neutrality and argues that the vote begins a debate about its definition, especially economic sanctions. He opposes Swiss participation in sanctions, predicts that a war nearer Switzerland could shift opinion, and stresses foreign perceptions of Swiss neutrality. These are his political judgments and forecasts; the result does not itself abolish neutrality. On October 1, Köppel again distinguishes the rejected strict constitutional formulation from abandonment of Swiss neutrality. He welcomes the continued ability to vote, blames complacency after decades of peace and prosperity and faults the SVP's campaign as lukewarm and insufficiently convinced. He sees a continuing path toward his preferred neutrality policy; these are attributed judgments, not an official SVP withdrawal or a new legal outcome.