Download as PDF

State of the nation

Federal Councillor and Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf speaks with Renske Heddema about banking secrecy, the controversial minaret ban, euthanasia and Switzerland’s international relations. Let’s join them in Bern …

By Renske Heddema | A guard in a green uniform takes me into her office in Bundeshaus West. The Federal Councillor rises from behind her desk, apologising for the delay; she has been on the phone with Russia.Reassuring me that the delay won’t be deducted from my time, she invites me to have a seat on the white leather couch in the centre of the room. She is exactly as friendly and accessible as the first time I met her in Zurich in 2008. It is not hard to imagine how this minister succeeded in ­giving Mister Switzerland – who apparently voted in favour of the minaret ban in November’s referendum – second thoughts on his decision. On his visit to the Bundeshaus 10 days after the vote, the newly elected Mister Switzerland was impressed by Widmer-Schlumpf’s arguments after a private audience in this very room. While her guard serves us tea, the minister quietly takes ­my questions.

Renske Heddema, Swiss News: Frau Bundesrätin, a CD ­containing stolen account information from a Swiss bank was recently bought by the German government. How does the Swiss government view this action?

Federal Councillor Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf: It is theft, ­obviously. We are of the opinion that a law-abiding state should not use stolen data to assert any claims a state holds against a ­citizen. I have my concerns regarding the consequences of such an action. This case could set a precedent. The Swiss police ­authorities have started an investigation. We will not give any ­information about the possible perpetrator or perpetrators, or about the bank involved, until the investigation is completed.

In a telephone call with Swiss President Doris Leuthard, Chancellor Merkel explained the German position. She ­allegedly said that the current problems would become obsolete with the new bilateral fiscal treaty with Germany. The German chancellor seems to refer to the automatic exchange of information between Swiss and German fiscal authorities.

That may be. It depends on how you define automatic exchange. Switzerland is opposed to what we call ‘the glass citizen’, just as EU countries such as Luxembourg and Austria are. In future we are ready to assist if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion of tax evasion. If tax fraud is involved, we already grant administrative or legal assistance. What we do not want, however, is to give foreign tax authorities full access at any moment to the ­accounts of foreigners in Swiss banks. Switzerland has a system in which citizens are asked to file their own tax bills correctly. There is a certain trust between the state and taxpayers. If we would have to give it up, it would be a major step back.

If Switzerland itself now starts referring to the automatic ­exchange of information, then perhaps the Germans have achieved their goal. By mentioning this regulation favoured by EU countries, your colleague Finance Minister Hans-Rudolf Merz broke the last taboo.

Finance Minister Merz mentioned it in the discussion on market access for Swiss banks and insurance companies in Germany, Europe and worldwide. My colleague indicated that the Swiss intention might have a price, as far as the EU is concerned. It only demonstrates that Switzerland has a realistic view on its position and strategy. We cannot have blinkers on, but want to discuss our chances and challenges openly with other countries.

The Swiss relationship with the United States has also been jeopardised – and by the Swiss courts. A judge recently ­forbade the handing over of more data from UBS to the ­United States.

The Federal Administrative Court has classified the agreement that we signed last year with the United States as merely a ­mutual agreement. The Federal Council will put the agreement to Parliament for approval. In any future appeals, the agreement would stand as a treaty of the same status as the older and more general bilateral double taxation agreement and, according to general rules of interpretation, would take precedence over the latter. As a result, Switzerland will be in a position to provide treaty assistance not only in cases of tax fraud, but also in cases of continued and serious tax evasion. We hope that Parliament will authorise the negotiated contract on UBS account holders with the United States shortly.

Will Swiss banking secrecy still be alive in five years?

I think Swiss banking secrecy will still exist. But it won’t ­apply to everybody. As far as honourable Swiss citizens are ­concerned – who forget to file an item on their tax form and do not violate the law on purpose – the bank-customers’ secrecy will remain intact. However, people who commit fraud are already prosecuted now. The question, which will be discussed, is whether people who commit continued and serious tax evasion shall also be prosecuted. In the context of international cooperation, Switzerland has already decided to grant administrative ­assistance in cases of tax evasion.

Time and time again, the Swiss Government seems to ­respond too late to international developments. Rather than being proactive, it only reacts on foreign pressure.

We do indeed have a direct democracy where processes take longer; we must often wait for the outcome of people’s vote. The Federal Council is a collegiate body, represented by politicians of the major parties, which together bear responsibility for the government. The seven of us have the same function as a head of state in a two-party system. We are currently preparing proposals on how to streamline the government’s activities. For example, whether the number of the Federal Councillors should be ­increased and whether the term of office of the president should be extended.

In November, the Swiss people voted that no more minarets could be built in Switzerland. The result came as a total ­surprise to the Federal Council.

The Federal Council takes the view that the fear of ‘Islamisation’ cannot be reduced by a ban on minarets. We tried to convey this message in great detail during the campaign, prior to the vote. We did not succeed in it. In a direct democracy, however, we have to respect every vote by the people.  

Has the outcome hardened the fronts in Switzerland?

I do not think so. In hindsight, it turned out that the yes-voters wanted to express themselves against headscarves, burkas or the refusal of an individual Muslim father to let his daughter take part in school swimming. Questions like forced marriages or ­female genital mutilation, which sometimes are wrongly associated with Islam, were mixed up with the minaret ban. Barely three weeks after the vote, I met with representatives from Islamic ­organisations. At the end of February, the circle was expanded and the talks will continue. Jews, Muslims, Catholics and Protestants still live together peacefully in Switzerland, just like before.

In your view, has the Switzerland’s international reputation been damaged?

There were a few demonstrations right after the vote. As for me, I was able to explain the vote and its outcome before the ­European Council of Justice Ministers in Brussels, which took place immediately after the vote. Many showed great understanding for our direct democracy. I note that so far it has not led to ­major misunderstandings. [Direct democracy] is recognised internationally; that it is a good thing for people to be able to express themselves on this sensitive issue, and not just the ­government.

But the fear is here. Parliament is postponing the debate on a Swiss People’s Party initiative aimed at the deportation of foreign criminals.

The initiative and its counter-proposal are currently being ­discussed by the parliamentary commission. The initiators of the proposal go too far. Important provisions of the international law, such as the European Convention on Human Rights or the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons [effective since 2002, the agreement with the EU gives European and Swiss ­citizens the right of residency in each other’s territories] would be ignored. The initiative requires that foreign criminals be ­expelled after committing certain offences. However, the list of criminal offences seems rather coincidental. The parliamentary commission has prepared a direct counter-proposal, which will respect our constitution and the commitment to international law. The people will have the last word.

You want to tighten Swiss euthanasia legislation, which is currently rather liberal. Why?

Because we have determined that there are cases we cannot ­tolerate under the ethical and moral standards of our state: when, for instance, in extreme cases, a young and healthy person comes to Switzerland and asks an organisation to help him or her within 24 hours. I believe that a society should protect life and not contribute to its termination. My objection also applies to the pressure it may exert on older people, as if one expects them to make way. A society cannot afford to let this happen.

What does that mean for foreigners?

That they cannot come to Switzerland and die here within 24 hours. Their demand for assisted suicide will have to be based on solid medical evidence. An organisation such as Dignitas will have to operate within that legal framework.

Do you think the so-called death tourism, as people have ­referred to it, has harmed Switzerland’s image?

In my view, it is certainly not desirable for our country to be renowned as a destination for assisted suicide. On the contrary, we want to spread the reputation of a country with high ­ethical values.