Gastrosuisse lacked a clear concept.
The landlords seemed helpless.
They repeatedly created new ideas for implementation during the campaign, but these only led to uncertainty.
The council members also offered the landlords little support.
We know one thing for certain from Claude Longchamp of the GfS: if you reject parts of a bill, you will vote against it.
The rejection was therefore to be expected.
Longchamp irritated us with his SRF trend analyses.
The “hesitation about the VAT initiative”, as the GfS called it in its title on September 17, 2014, was probably only among the augurs.
The GfS was off the mark by a full twelve percent in terms of the “yes” percentage.
Once again, the question arises as to what use such surveys are.
The landlords seemed helpless.
They repeatedly created new ideas for implementation during the campaign, but these only led to uncertainty.
The council members also offered the landlords little support.
We know one thing for certain from Claude Longchamp of the GfS: if you reject parts of a bill, you will vote against it.
The rejection was therefore to be expected.
Longchamp irritated us with his SRF trend analyses.
The “hesitation about the VAT initiative”, as the GfS called it in its title on September 17, 2014, was probably only among the augurs.
The GfS was off the mark by a full twelve percent in terms of the “yes” percentage.
Once again, the question arises as to what use such surveys are.
Apparently, the population wanted to cement the status quo with the “no” vote on gastronomy.
But was it a vote in favor of the low VAT rate on food or against special tax treatment for restaurateurs, or a combination of both?
We cannot yet answer this question conclusively.
In my opinion, the following considerations seem logical: The vast majority of restaurant guests have said no (Gastrosuisse speaks of over two million guests per day).
Gastrosuisse’s campaign therefore did not work, neither in the countryside nor in the city.
And the SVP, which was the only party to vote Yes, was unable to attract more Yes votes than its electoral potential.
The question was raised on various occasions as to whether the gastronomy initiative would open the door to a standard VAT rate.
The SVP, CVP and SP gave this idea a clear rebuff in the elephant round on SRF: the standard VAT rate was dead, said the exponents in unison.
The Gastro-No was a clear verdict in favor of a low VAT rate for food.
The FDP does not share this opinion.
On the contrary, President Müller announced that he would launch a popular initiative for a standard rate if funds could be found.
Apparently, the Swiss Trade Association SGV-USAM wants to support the single rate initiative.
I have my doubts as to whether the SGV base will support the decision.
Have the bakers, butchers and chemists who opposed the gastronomy initiative been consulted?
The idea of completely exempting a selection of basic foodstuffs and medicines from VAT could offer a way out and a compromise.
However, this would leave the demarcation problem unresolved.
It is a commonplace that initiatives have a political impact even if they are rejected.
The single health insurance initiative has left its mark: before it was rejected, parliament refined the risk equalization system and passed a health insurance supervision law.
The question arises as to what the gastro initiative has achieved.
Nothing but expenses, one is inclined to say?
It is conceivable that the vote has even damaged the reputation of restaurateurs.
Sometimes a withdrawal would probably be the better choice than accepting such a clear verdict from the people and the cantons.
However, it is almost impossible to communicate this to your own base.
Especially as the bill is being submitted to the people because a counter-proposal failed in parliament.
But was it a vote in favor of the low VAT rate on food or against special tax treatment for restaurateurs, or a combination of both?
We cannot yet answer this question conclusively.
In my opinion, the following considerations seem logical: The vast majority of restaurant guests have said no (Gastrosuisse speaks of over two million guests per day).
Gastrosuisse’s campaign therefore did not work, neither in the countryside nor in the city.
And the SVP, which was the only party to vote Yes, was unable to attract more Yes votes than its electoral potential.
The question was raised on various occasions as to whether the gastronomy initiative would open the door to a standard VAT rate.
The SVP, CVP and SP gave this idea a clear rebuff in the elephant round on SRF: the standard VAT rate was dead, said the exponents in unison.
The Gastro-No was a clear verdict in favor of a low VAT rate for food.
The FDP does not share this opinion.
On the contrary, President Müller announced that he would launch a popular initiative for a standard rate if funds could be found.
Apparently, the Swiss Trade Association SGV-USAM wants to support the single rate initiative.
I have my doubts as to whether the SGV base will support the decision.
Have the bakers, butchers and chemists who opposed the gastronomy initiative been consulted?
The idea of completely exempting a selection of basic foodstuffs and medicines from VAT could offer a way out and a compromise.
However, this would leave the demarcation problem unresolved.
It is a commonplace that initiatives have a political impact even if they are rejected.
The single health insurance initiative has left its mark: before it was rejected, parliament refined the risk equalization system and passed a health insurance supervision law.
The question arises as to what the gastro initiative has achieved.
Nothing but expenses, one is inclined to say?
It is conceivable that the vote has even damaged the reputation of restaurateurs.
Sometimes a withdrawal would probably be the better choice than accepting such a clear verdict from the people and the cantons.
However, it is almost impossible to communicate this to your own base.
Especially as the bill is being submitted to the people because a counter-proposal failed in parliament.