It’s rare that the people get to decide the fate of a free trade deal – it’s only happened twice in the last half century in Switzerland. The vote was less about trade and more about palm oil, which has become synonymous with deforestation and the decimation of wildlife like the Orangutan.

I asked my colleague Anand Chandrasekhar, who has been covering the topic for years, for his take on the vote. “The fact that so many people opposed the deal shows that it is firmly cemented in people’s mind that anything to do with palm oil is bad.”

But the fact that a sustainability clause is in the deal should be some consolation prize – one that could become the standard for future deals. As the Tages-Anzeiger wrote, without such a clause, the deal would most definitely have failed.

“It won’t be easy for the government to sign off on deals like this in the future. Every free trade deal with an environmentally or socially sensitive country or bloc should expect a referendum,” said Chandrasekhar. Swiss President and economics minister Guy Parmelin already hinted that similar clauses could be included in deals under discussion such as that with the Mercosur region, where the clearing of forests for soy and beef production won’t go unnoticed...

Chandrasekhar says that this is still a slim win for the economy, and does a favour for Indonesia, by giving its much-criticised palm oil a stamp of approval.

The vote made it clear that the public is more sensitive to hints that the economy is taking precedence over principles, but the question is how far the government is willing to go. What about “clean gold” in a deal with Peru? “Child labour-free cocoa” out of West Africa? Nothing is for free...

Looking ahead: The European Parliament determines next steps for an EU-wide law on corporate due diligence.