[ad_1]
Only 8,670 votes decided Sunday to vote on the acquisition of new fighter jets. With the wafer-thin yes, the future of the Swiss Air Force is assured for now.
The adjusted result also plays in favor of the army’s opponents: the group for a Switzerland without an army (GSoA) is already toying with the idea of launching a popular initiative against the actual purchase of new fighter jets. And in the eyes of the SP, the vote shows that the security policy of the Department of Defense no longer convinces people. A look at the comment column contradicts this: the majority of our community still supports the military.
“GSoA should put a realistic project on the table”
Only 27 percent of our readers say in the vote that the time has come to fundamentally question the military. On the other hand, 70 percent think that Switzerland needs an army, regardless of the air force and yesterday’s result. The remaining three percent are unsure. But even in the comments, the defenders of national defense are much louder.
“Instead of threatening another initiative, the GSoA should finally put on the table a realistic national defense project that can replace the army,” writes Michel Gasser. Ulrich Peter also wonders who will defend Switzerland: “Anyone who is against the Air Force should go to the front in an attack; this applies above all to the GSoA,” said the BLICK reader.
“You are questioning sovereignty”
Without the military, many of our readers would no longer feel safe. “Opponents are questioning the total sovereignty of Switzerland,” says Thomas Bachmann. In his opinion, spending on security is by no means unnecessary: ”Otherwise, everything that falls in this area would have to be abolished immediately, that is, without an army, without border guards, without police and without a police force. firefighters”.
But there are also different voices in the comments column. BLICK reader Justus Delcre, for example, made a no and still accepts the result: “not because he is against the army, but because I consider his strategy to be inadequate.” There is a lack of efficiency and effectiveness. “I hope the army command works on it,” Delcre writes.
“The result should be exhilarating”
BLICK reader Hans Gusen takes the GSoA proposal lightly and believes that army opponents have now simply tasted blood: “A little more calm – with this adjusted result you can get a bit arrogant.” Others think that criticism should be taken seriously. “The result should make us think,” writes Hans Rudolf Meiller. “The malaise is widespread.”
For Beat Tanner, the narrow result shows that Switzerland is thinking ahead: “Personally, I am delighted that so many citizens have shown a modern attitude and a lot of foresight when they say no,” he writes. “Clearly, you can’t just ignore that and get back in business.” The nearly 50 percent of opponents to fighter jets must also be respected and the decision must be carefully considered.
“We are facing an economic collapse”
The abolition of the army would not find a majority in the BLICK community, but Paul Neidhart believes that questions can still be asked: “What army do we need and how much should it cost?” Erwin Brigger, who emphasizes that he is not a military opponent and has always enjoyed doing his military service, is also critical of the budget. “We are facing a total economic collapse,” he writes. “The money could now be used much more sensibly.”
Whether it’s for or against fighter jets, for or against the military, Sunday’s head-to-head race proves once again that every vote counts, as Conny Sandmeier writes. “Hopefully, non-voters now see how important it is to vote.”
