[ad_1]
- The Council of States recommends no to the fair price initiative, but has approved an indirect counterproposal that goes very well with the initiators.
- Only the ban on so-called geo-blocking remains controversial.
The “Stop the high-price island – for just price” initiative is targeting the Swiss surcharge. Like the National Council and the Federal Council, the Council of States rejects the initiative (30 to 12 votes).
The indirect counterproposal approved by the small chamber with 30 to 13 votes includes the tightening of the antitrust law. With some provisions, Parliament goes beyond the Federal Council.
After the failure of the antitrust review, the counterproposal was necessary, said Hannes Germann (SVP / SH) on behalf of the majority, who is also a member of the initiative committee. With Swiss surcharges, companies would be literally scammed by foreign suppliers.
Ruedi Noser: “It is not a wonderful drug”
A defeated minority led by Ruedi Noser (FDP / ZH) would not have wanted to accept the counterproposal. The initiative and the counterproposal are not the “miracle cure” that ensures lower prices and keeps wages high, Noser said. “I am absolutely convinced that the initiative is a sham. (…) The fair price initiative and the counterproposal are by no means a miracle cure, but are primarily pure legal fodder. “
Roberto Zanetti (SP / SO) worked hard to reach the counterproposal: “If exactly the same product costs X at the counter on the other side of the border and the general importer in Switzerland has to pay X plus 20 or 30 or 40 percent So that has nothing to do with the expensive island of Switzerland, just the Swiss surcharge scam. “
In addition to the dominant companies, the counterproposal also makes companies that are relatively powerful in the market increasingly responsible. It refers to companies on which others depend de facto for lack of alternatives.
In the advice version, relatively powerful companies include not only the supply side, but also the demand side.
Controversial geoblocking
But there are still differences between the tips. First, the Council of States does not agree with the prohibition of private geoblocking that the National Council has included in the bill for formal reasons.
It is not clear whether consumers will ultimately benefit. According to the counterproposal, companies would not be forced to pass on lower purchase prices to customers.
Keystone
Paul Rechsteiner (SP / SG) called the provision “improvised” and “an accident” and warned of “enormous collateral damage.” The exceptions, the regulation of which the National Council wants to “delegate” to the Federal Council, are important.
The Federal Council also rejects the geo-blocking ban requested by the National Council, anchored in the law against unfair competition (UWG). The scope of such a ban goes far beyond what the initiative wanted, Economy Minister Guy Parmelin said.
Council of States against the re-import clause
The Council of States also does not want the re-import clause that the National Council added to the counterproposal. This is intended to prevent products that are shipped abroad at low prices from being imported back into Switzerland at lower prices. Swiss companies could continue to apply a surcharge to Switzerland.
In the eyes of the majority of the Council of States Commission, this clause is protectionist. Therefore, he requested to do without it and he succeeded.
This means that the counterproposal for rectification goes back to the National Council.
