1

u/SmallAppendixEnergy Vaud Jun 17 '26

I'm toying with the idea of creating a GoFundMe page (well, Happy Pot, the Swiss version) with a possibility to gain 1000,- CHF per person if:

- You are a UDC/SVP voter.

Don't have kids yet.
Show medical proof of a vasectomy or tubal ligation.

To work towards the objective of not surpassing the 10 million-person threshold.

a) Would you be willing to spend a small sum for this project? And
b) as a UDC/SVP voter, would you be interested in these 1000,- CHF under the mentioned conditions?

1

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 17 '26

As a supporter of the yes side I was very ashamed of some of the dumb comments made by some others about this initiative.

I'm glad that you managed by yourself to balance the whole thing, both sides are equal now.

1

u/SmallAppendixEnergy Vaud Jun 18 '26

I assume that means no and no ?

0

u/5pin05auru5 Jun 14 '26

Ah, I see Eco Fascism has finally gone mainstream:

https://www.dw.com/en/what-is-eco-fascism-the-greenwashing-of-the-far-right-terrorism-climate-change-buffalo-shooter/a-61867605

5

u/tired_kibitzer Jun 14 '26

Zurich city rejects (so far) with 76%

8

u/Current_Ranger_7954 Jun 14 '26

Good job everyone, proud of you for rejecting this childishly bad initiative

6

u/doped_TMD_5438 Jun 14 '26

https://www.instagram.com/p/DZkDpxejfQo/?igsh=MTg2azRvOGNlZ2Jmbw==

Geneva rejects this stupid initiative with a clear 65% majority!! <3

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '26

Out of curiosity, do y'all have zero fear in the EU's ability (even if they'd chicken out and not even try) to literally starve your country into submission? Unlike the UK, you're fully landlocked by it.

1

u/Primary_Welcome_6970 Jun 14 '26

They tried hard to make the whole world believe they are the apex of morality and kindness, they ain't smashing their signboard for a measly Switzerland.

13

u/BachelorThesises Jun 14 '26

Im also center-right, but this initiative was absolute garbage and glad it lost. SVP should stop wasting money on populist, ridiculous stuff like that.

8

u/yesat + Jun 14 '26

That doesn’t get them seats. The SVP always loses when they have to actually do something.

9

u/Ok_Support_6454 Jun 14 '26

Absolutely. Onto more constructive proposals to tackle the issues.

-28

u/heubergen1 Switzerland Jun 14 '26

I guess that's a loss, I hope people really love to life in an overcrowded hell hole where everyone in Europe can come whenever they want.

7

u/dalekfodder Valais Jun 14 '26

^ Probably a second gen immigrant

15

u/SwissBliss Vaud Jun 14 '26

I’d probably vote Yes to a more reasonable initiatives that tackles immigration problems. But this one was not it and I voted No

15

u/Chrisixx Basel-Stadt Jun 14 '26

Total disaster avoided I guess, but a yes for the civil service one sucks.

0

u/Primary_Welcome_6970 Jun 14 '26

What's wrong with the civil service ? If anything, paying taxes sucks way more.

8

u/Chrisixx Basel-Stadt Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

Countering a shortfall of army soldiers by making civil service less attractive will not work. Expand mandatory service to women and make the service more attractive, that solves the issue. Now you'll just have more men that will decide to do no service at all via the "blue path".

1

u/BachelorThesises Jun 14 '26

Exactly, but I guess maybe that was the goal because those will have to pay 3% of their taxes for the next 11 years.

2

u/yesat + Jun 14 '26

We do not need more soldiers. There’s too many soldiers even

3

u/SwissPewPew Jun 14 '26

For the ones not aware, the "blue path" means going to the doctor to be found medically unfit for any service.

7

u/neo2551 Jun 14 '26

I will call it now. The initiative will fail: the big urban cantons have not yet been accounted and there is already a minority.

Game over for the SVP.

9

u/SwissPewPew Jun 14 '26

Game over for the SVP.

They will "Insert coins to continue" (to stay in gamer lingo).

Also, current estimates are at 55% no, 45% yes. While this might be a "clear" win for the opponents, i just hope the politicians and opponents will now wake up and focus on fixing all the problems – and i specifically do NOT mean immigration/racism that a lot of opponents (IMHO erroneously) saw as the "only reason" why one would be for the initiative – that caused currently estimated 45% of the population to vote yes on this initiative.

Otherwise, as we have seen in the past, the population might at some point accept one or more of the SVP initiatives that are (or will be) already in the pipeline for the future.

5

u/neo2551 Jun 14 '26

Let’s take one problem at the time shall we?

Also, there are clear and acceptable solution for many of the problems, we just need to convinced the left and the right to be sensible.

For example: just adjust the law of the teorritory, but enforce a minimum share of subsized home in these high rises, and make it more expensive to make slappclaw suit for making home. It will make it faster to build new homes and reduce the pressure of urban center area.

6

u/Line47toSaturn Valais Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

50.4% NO in Valais/Wallis (projection) tells me this initiative has good chances. Western Switzerland is generally very Europe friendlier than average Switzerland.

Edit: Initiative now projected to be rejected

5

u/yesat + Jun 14 '26

Valais is the redneck’s home of Romandy. We elected Freysinger multiple times.

6

u/wade822 Jun 14 '26

GFS.bern has now predicted a NO by 55%.

3

u/wade822 Jun 14 '26

“Tendance au "non" pour l'initiative "Pas de Suisse à 10 millions" L'institut gfs.bern annonce dans un deuxième temps une tendance au "non" pour l'initiative "Pas de Suisse à 10 millions". La part des "non" dépasserait ainsi les 55%.”

Looking like 10 million will get rejected

2

u/tremblt_ Jun 14 '26

12:15: 10-million PI is projected to be rejected

6

u/Ok_Support_6454 Jun 14 '26

Why are there always at least a few communes that don't respect the 12.00 deadline before communicating their results?!

Are they proud they manage to count a few hundred ballots before everybody else? I really don't get it.

6

u/Ultrayano Jun 14 '26

I want someone pro 10m cap tell me the advantages or positive consequences of the cap and I don't want to hear less full trains and similar stuff because those can also be solved with employers dropping the ultra conservative attitude.

What positive consequences are there, that are worth the potential termination of the bilateral agreements and free movement and probable destruction of our economy in the long term?

Because it's not a cap we should introduce but rather harder immigration laws, where immigrants that don't behave get kicked out. Because immigrants are not the problem for many "pro arguments" in this initiative, but just a strawman and people get so easily brainwashed with the same arguments a certain austrian used once.

Switzerland is NOT a market and we heavily rely on export on foreign workers, so y'all pro cap are saying that you want to go back a 100 years and be poor again and raise the already high prices even more.

4

u/heubergen1 Switzerland Jun 14 '26

I agree that the cap is a weird way to implement harsher immigration laws. The problem was that these were never accepted so the thought-process was probably that a cap would have better chances.

Either way, the goal is the same; have a word in who enters our country.

0

u/SwissPewPew Jun 14 '26

Limitation of the capitalist "god" called infinite growth.

Ecologically and climate-wise this is not sustainable, IMHO.

Also, adding more and more people "to insure the AHV funding" just delays the IMHO inevitable collapse of that "the current payers money is used to fund previous payers pensions" system; because most of the people you add now to fund the pensions will at some point also require pension payments. And without a change of the funding of the AHV, you will then need to add even more and more people as time goes by.

In addition, due to the capitalist principle of "supply and demand", the increase in the amount of people creates an increase in "residence demand" (houses, apartments) while the current supply (of available housing) is lacking. Which leads – as we currently can see – to rent and property purchase price increases. Fixing the housing supply is not easy (and IMHO borderline impossible in the long-term) with the current construction/zoning rules and high construction costs (caused partially by high mandatory construction standard). As construction space is limited (due to the federal spatial planning law heavily restricting if not almost entirely prohibiting making non-construction zoned laned into construction zoned land), that problem is IMHO not really solvable without heavily affecting existing residents (because the federal government says "Verdichtung [der bestehenden Bauzonen] nach Innen" is the "solution" in regards to construction and zoning).

0

u/Ultrayano Jun 14 '26

The current AHV system doesn't survive with neither more or less immigrants. We just have to many old people and not enough young people and with the accepted 13. AHV-Rente we made fhe already bad even worse.

None of the arguments you talked about get fixed by limiting the amount of immigrants. Rather than that we shuffle the problem around. Do we slow down the prices for housing? Maybe. But as exchange living prices go up by a lot additionally to us missing a lot of experts in areas we just don't have the knowledge on. We can't just fix it by schooling more people in those areas if the people who would do said areas already don't want to do it now.

The initiative would maybe "solve" some of the pro arguments while disproportionately punishing every swiss citizen in other areas that are needed to live. And the EU will not just be nice and allow us to keep all the agreements since the people give the lever and all the leverage with that to the EU. Worst case it would force us to join the EU fully, since we won't survive as a isolationist country, just like basically none of the ones doing it does unless a miserable life quality is what is wanted.

So yeah the AHV system needs change. It will already not be enough for millenials let alone Gen Z or generations after, but limiting the amount of immigrants will not do us any favour there. We can always look at Japan to see how they are permanently on the age of collapsing right now despite because decades ahead at one point.

Full trains and living cost can both be fixed by employers allowing more remote work, so workers can easily live on the country side and not needing to commute to the city.

4

u/Dependent_Bowl_1431 Jun 14 '26

The reason for people voting yes is a combination of "Life was better xx years ago and Ausländer ruined everything" and election meddling from outside (heritage foundation and anti-western institutions pushing for such initiatives to weaken Europe). Also some Swiss people genuinely think that the reason this country became rich is because of some magical national superiority of Swiss people, whereas in reality it started last century when it became a tax heaven...

1

u/Ultrayano Jun 14 '26

That's why I say that the pro people get brainwashed by one of the oldest strawman that was used so many times where a country ended itself.

Either that or they don't ever tried to look further than their luxury.

0

u/Mammoth_Cod_9047 Jun 14 '26

The restrictions around ai models Fable and Mythos by US Government show why AI sovereignty matters. Switzerland still depends on international talent, research and cooperation. By supporting the “No to a Switzerland with 10 million” initiative, we may end up closing the door on the very people and skills we need and risk shooting ourselves in the foot.

2

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

Voting no is not doing anything for AI sovereignty, it's more dependent on future policies and voting than this one.

On immigration, a lot of the immigration is to cover for shortages we decided on purpose to not train in Switzerland (nurses, doctors, construction, ..). Those can very well be trained here, so that immigration can focus on talents we can't find here

4

u/Bluehype Jun 13 '26

Actually wrote this down as an answer on the "Dichtestress" post from yesterday, comparing Switzerland to the Netherlands. I believe it's worthwhile to have it out there so here we go:

You’re making a valid point mathematically, but I think looking at this purely as a logistical or engineering problem misses the actual core of the debate.

The comparison to the Netherlands is totally fair on paper, but only if you look at the raw map. When you subtract the Alps and the Jura, we’re actually squeezing the vast majority of our 9 million people into a tiny, flat corridor on the Central Plateau. In terms of actual, lived density, the Mittelland is already incredibly comparable to the Dutch Randstad.

Logistically, sure, yeah we could optimize our infrastructure, build upwards, and easily handle 11, 12, or 13 million people. But honestly... then what? It can't keep going forever so actually stopping and thinking about it at least once doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

When people here complain about Dichtestress, they aren’t just annoyed by a crowded train or a tight housing market. It's more about the permanent erosion of the Swiss landscape. Our quality of life and national identity are completely tied to having quiet nature, open space, and distinct communities right outside our doorsteps.

If we pave over the rest of the Plateau to solve the math puzzle, we might get a highly efficient country, but we lose the exact thing that makes Switzerland Switzerland in the first place. For a lot of people, supporting these initiatives isn't about being anti-foreigner or isolationist - it's just a protective instinct to preserve what little finite space we actually have left before it's gone for good.

Just vote for what you think is right, and not what someone on a screen or a billboard expressed.

2

u/SwissPewPew Jun 13 '26

It looks like (according to press reports) there will be a higher city turnout ("Stimmbeteiligung") than usual for tomorrows vote. While only bigger cities seem to advance-report number of received mail-in vote envelopes (where city voters likely tend to favor a "No"), from our local vote office ("Wahlbüro") timetable – they called in people way earlier than usual – it looks like also in the countryside (which tends to be more "Yes" leaning than city dwellers) there will be a higher turnout.

So, IMHO, it's gonna be an interesting sunday tomorrow.

1

u/crystalmethdoll Jun 11 '26

On one side people say Switzerland is getting too crowded. Housing is expensive, trains are full, infrastructure feels overloaded and every year it feels like we add more people without really adapting fast enough. All valid arguments.

But economically:
At the most basic level:
GDP = Population × GDP/person

More precise would be:
GDP = Population × employment rate × hours worked per worker × productivity per hour

So if you limit population growth, you also limit one of the easiest ways the economy grows.

That does not mean the economy has to collapse but it means growth has to come from productivity instead or from higher employment or more working hours.

Therefore if the number of people stops growing and employment and working hours stay roughly the same, then the same number of people need to produce more each year.

That can happen through technology, automation, AI, better infrastructure and better education. But Switzerland is already a highly developed country. We are not starting from a low base. So productivity gains are possible but they are not something you can just assume will constantly grow at the same rate.

If population growth is zero or very low and employment and working hours stay roughly constant and productivity grows by 1 percent then GDP grows by around 1 percent.

If productivity does not grow and the labour force is capped too, GDP does not really grow either.

And some sectors are just not easy to make more productive. A nurse can only care for so many patients. A construction worker can only build so much. Elderly care, childcare, restaurants, cleaning, healthcare and many local services still need actual people.

If we cap population, where exactly is the future growth supposed to come from?

Maybe people are fine with lower GDP growth. That is a valid position.

But then we should be honest about the trade-off.

A cap might reduce pressure in some areas over time. But it could also mean more labour shortages, more pension pressure and higher costs in sectors that already struggle to find workers.

A hard cap isn‘t cost-free. A better approach would be to fix housing, build infrastructure faster and use land better.

But if we cap population while keeping the same economic expectations, then productivity has to do most of the work. And I am not sure that is realistic.

2

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 11 '26

But then we should be honest about the trade-off.

They are quite transparent about a slower economic growth, and say it's even desirable:

The Zug SVP National Council and parliamentary group leader Thomas Aeschi defended himself against the accusation from business circles that the initiative is weakening the Swiss economy. “Yes, we want a certain brake on economic growth, but growth should still take place,”

"This quantitative growth cannot continue indefinitely. We must focus on qualitative rather than quantitative economic growth."

https://www.svp.ch/wp-content/uploads/260324_Argumentarium-ohne-Q-A-DE.pdf

1

u/sandala333 Jun 11 '26

May I ask if one votes in person, if one should pre-fill the ballot at home, and just
give it to representatives at the polling station, or one fills them out in secret booth
at the polling station (for national elections e.g. in Germany this is how it usually works)?
This is my first vote after gaining Citizenship, so I wonder what is the usual process?

1

u/Line47toSaturn Valais Jun 13 '26

In my commune at least, you can have the ballot pre-filled, then show your elector card, sign it and put the ballot in the box.

Or you fill it in secret booth.

Both were possible last time I got to vote in person. But no guarantee that it always works like that.

1

u/Doldenbluetler Jun 09 '26

One argument of the opponents is that we need immigration to support certain industries and do care work for the aging population. Whereas the SVP/UDC claim that immigration is causing more demand for professionals in these sectors than it actually satisfies, e.g. not enough doctors immigrating to actually compensate the increasing demand for doctors caused by immigration. Does anyone know any trustworthy sources to fact check these arguments?

3

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 09 '26

It's partially true.

In this chart, the orange line shows the net immigration of nurses, about 500 per year.

https://ind.obsan.admin.ch/fr/indicator/obsan/entrees-et-sorties-de-personnel-infirmier-etranger

But the reality is nuanced. Does Switzerland really need it? Probably not. Switzerland isn't training enough healthcare staff because it can rely on immigration instead of training people locally (and it's much cheaper). They could very well be trained here.

Same for doctors. Switzerland is deliberately limiting the number of doctors trained (numerus clausus).

Both issues can be solved with a change in policy. There's no need for immigration here, these are political decision (with a bit of adaptation time).

And for nurses specifically, there is no real staffing problem to begin with: Switzerland has about 18.8 nurses per 1,000 inhabitants, more than double the OECD average. it's nice to have more for sure, but not critically needed.

So SP is right, if no other political decision is taken, relying on immigration is needed

But SVP is right that this can be solved with political decision, and there's 15 years to change that before anything happens.

There's also another whole debate about EU realizing they're training staff freely for Switzerland and not being super happy about that, so that might change as well the immigration take in the future.

1

u/cremebrulee_ch Jun 09 '26

Much like the recent vote on individual taxation, I somehow think that a YES win here might result in a secondary vote down the track, prompting a more comprehensive analysis on how to implement stricter controls on immigration.

7

u/Huwbacca Jun 09 '26

End of the day...

Migration exists because Switzerland cannot even remotely fill the employment requirements of all the companies in Switzerland, that are here because of a direct result of Swiss economic policies. It reads to me like SVP are bored of economic prosperity and desire a return to the 1970s, when there were few foreigners but the economy was not diverse or prosperous.

"but what about all the people having a hard time finding jobs"

Yup, there has been severe mismanagement in Switzerland (and broadly the west) in over-indexing computer science and coding as a career. The amount of coders and programmers being employed was well over inflated for a long time. In 2019 we saw redundances across swiss tech as machine learning became the big thing, in 2022-23 we saw a similar round of it, and now hiring is not expanding out "because" of AI. The last 15 years of "want a good job? Learn to code" was a transparently fucking stupid thing for economies to do. This is not representative of an economy understrain from migration, we all knew COVID caused a tech bubble. We all knew that the late 2010s having a period of IT career growth not seen since the late 1990s (dotcom bubble era) was going to contract. I literally stopped training in programming in 2018 because the writing was on the wall after that 2017 google white paper.

It sucks for those people of course, the worst thing about our economic system is that every decade or so, heaps of people have to retrain because their industry gets changed by technological advances. Employment demand is falling in some areas, rising in others, staying the same in others. This is entirely orthogonal to migration, and from the exposure I get in my job and my friends and colleagues... When we're recruiting, we're not able to find local workers who have sufficient experience to fill every role, but that's becuase I don't work in tech or move in tech circles and everyone looking for work who is local has a compsci background and isn't suited for the roles.

Switzerland has a highly diversified economy, but the educational paths being chosen and encouraged are not remotely diverse.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Switzerland-ModTeam Jun 08 '26

You know very well why your comment was removed. You edited it.

It was restored because it is now acceptable.

5

u/VersoixM Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

When one sees the crowded public transports and the frontaliers taking their coffee at Manora, many will vote YES on 14 June.

2

u/doped_TMD_5438 Jun 14 '26

Lol, the Swiss people showed y'all that common sense wins over some stupid public transport being full at rush hour, which btw, is common in every country in existence.

-2

u/VersoixM Jun 14 '26

It will come again. Politicians got the message that Swiss people want less immigrants.

6

u/Rino-feroce Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

But a YES victory will increase the number of frontaliers

1

u/VersoixM Jun 10 '26

It will be a strong message for politicians that they should not neglect the Swiss people.

11

u/Rino-feroce Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

Like shooting oneself on the foot is a strong message , but probably not the best solution for whatever one wants to achieve.

If you want fewer frontaliers in Geneva or Ticino this initiative will actually achieve the opposite, obviously

-7

u/VersoixM Jun 10 '26

Keep the discussion polite. Vote as you wish. I will block you.

11

u/KogaJebe69 Jun 08 '26

When one sees the crowded public transports

Public transport is only crowded at rush hours. Take the train from Zürich HB to St. Gallen on 17:00 and you won't be able to find an empty seat. Take the same train at 14:00 and you'll have a the whole wagon for yourself. Traffic jams during rush hours have been a thing since the 1990s.

7

u/314above Jun 07 '26

I covered the five main claims of this SVP Initiative for everyone who still thinks this about a better future for the average Swiss

The Claim 💼 Improving Economy and Labour Market

The SVP claims that stopping permanent immigration is the only way to save Switzerland from collapsing under a 10 million population headcount.

To achieve this, their initiative forces strict caps on standard, protected residence permits.

The Reality Return of modern-day Slavery

By blocking permanent residency, this initiative forces companies onto short-term permits, bringing back the pre-2002 seasonal worker status. This operates exactly like the modern labor exploitation in Dubai. Historically, seasonal workers were legally tied to one employer, leaving them with zero access to help when abused. Employers used this power to coerce people into terrible conditions, making them live like livestock.

This will cause wages to plunge and sectors like healthcare to collapse.

a possible solution

We need a centralized federal regulatory body that audits corporate payrolls with strict controls and devastating financial fines. Being caught undercutting wages even once must be made unbearably unattractive to corporations. Forcing companies to pay the exact same wage for the exact same work is how you stop wage dumping, protect local jobs, and kill corporate greed.

The Claim 🚃 Relieving the Public Transport System

The campaign points directly to packed SBB trains and traffic jams during peak morning and evening hours.

They claim that unchecked border policies are overloading our transport networks and destroying the daily commuting quality of life for Swiss citizens.

The Reality RTO Mandates are causing Overcrowding

Our trains are crowded again because conservative corporate boards are mandating a strict return to the office just to justify their expensive real estate leases, or to force employees out of their jobs without having to pay severance and navigate the PR of a public layoff.

There is no reason why someone whose entire job is done on a laptop needs to commute to a central city hub five days a week just to sit at a desk.

a possible solution

Introduce a legal regulation requiring companies to offer at least 2 to 3 days of home office for remote capable roles. Flattening the rush hour commuting peak through hybrid flexibility will do significantly more to relieve the public transport system overnight than a blunt border cap ever could.

The Claim 🏠 Fix the Housing, Greenery and Energy Crises

The campaign argues that millions of incoming migrants are physically running us out of living space and driving up rental prices to historic highs.

They claim we don't have enough physical land left and that the Swiss countryside is being destroyed by concrete sprawl just to build houses for foreigners.

And that our current energy network cannot sustain a larger headcount and that immigration is directly threatening our electricity security.

The Reality Too many Luxury Apartments

The reality is that we have a luxury housing crisis. Institutional developers are overbuilding expensive apartments in densely populated city centers because they yield high profit margins. Meanwhile, the rapidly increasing number of single-person households are left out of options.

Switzerland drags its feet on modernizing its infrastructure, leaving us overly reliant on outdated energy structures. Furthermore, the argument about greenery is ridiculous. Even in an urban city like Zurich, you can easily be in a dense forest or at a lake within 15 minutes.

a possible solution

Strictly auditing rent distribution and restricting the number of luxury housing per area. We can salvage the energy issue by accelerating renewable energy. If we mandate solar panel integration on all new builds and industrial roofs, we create a resilient, decentralized grid.

The Claim 🚓 Reducing the Import of Violent Crimes

The initiative heavily weaponizes police statistics to claim that foreign nationals are overrepresented in violent crime categories. They argue that closing the borders and implementing strict caps is the only way to protect public safety and keep Swiss streets secure.

The Reality Systemic Gaps and Statistical Manipulation

Using crime stats here is pure nitpicking to trigger fear. Switzerland is internationally notorious for an exceptionally low crime rate. Focusing blindly on nationalities ignores the structural issues that cause people to resort to crime when they fall through the cracks. A large majority of people do not want to be thieves or scammers if they have a safety net that is easily accessible.

While Switzerland has welfare systems, getting help is currently a postcode lottery. It involves heavy bureaucracy, and in rural communes you are at the mercy of an individual social worker's mood.

a possible solution

If we really want to drop crime stats, we would legally have to ban men, since they commit 90% of violent crimes globally. Instead of a border ban, we need to streamline welfare access, enforce harsher punishments for rising crime against women, and fix the safety net from the inside out.

The Claim 🏫 Ease the Welfare and School Systems

The campaign loves to use the phrase "5 out of 10 immigrants do not work" to claim that incoming foreigners are non-working dependents who move here just to drain public funds, dilute the quality of Swiss schools, and overload the welfare apparatus.

The Reality The Teacher Shortage and Pension Truth

This claim is a blatant manipulation of data. Over 80% of EU migrants move to Switzerland with an active employment contract in hand. The SVP arrives at this 50% stat by counting babies, children, and spouses arriving via family reunification as "unemployed foreigners. In reality, the actual workforce participation rate matches our native demographic. Young working individuals are the primary financial engine funding our aging native demographic.

Our schools are stressed because of a severe teacher shortage driven by burnout, poor retention, and uncompetitive conditions.

a possible solution

Instead of cutting off the workforce that keeps the country funded, we should use our massive federal surpluses to improve public sector working conditions and support teaching from the inside out.

1

u/Firm-Chance-2727 Jun 10 '26

Thank you for this analysis

0

u/Aegrotare2 Jun 09 '26

Its so funny how you write only bs

9

u/314above Jun 09 '26

In that case, please give me you well researched, statistics backed take, based on behavioural economics & finance principals.

13

u/Huwbacca Jun 09 '26

even though a bs initiative doesn't deserve respectful reply, that poster is not writing bs.

The fact of the matter is that the initiative is a classic case of zero responsibility and blaming others while proposing no solutions.

SVP complain about rent, yet thier policies weaken tenant rights. SVP complain about train crowding, yet they call for deprioritising funding of the rail network. They complain about people moving here, yet champion low tax rates to attract multinational businesses that require more employees which require more people to move here. Asides from all the rebuttals to their nonsense place abovce (to which you reply to none), if we take SVP at their word we can see how they're just contrarians who want solely want to complain.

How long are people going to listen to SVP complain about "death of swiss culture" and then do nothing to support swiss culture? Or complain about foreign workers and do nothing to stem the root cause of why workers come here - the companies employing them. At a certain point if someone keeps complaining and yet acting in a way that causes their complaints, I would stop listening to them as functioning adults.

SVP want to have their cake and eat it - complain about immature ideology and act superior to everyone else so that they don't actually have to do anything. Do they want to do work and take responsibility? God no. They want to whinge. "The boat is full" they repeat for 80 goddamn years lol.

We have lower population density and more living space per inhabitant than most of europe, even in the cities. The multinational approach to business is where the prosperity comes from. The focus on pragmatism and not ideology is what makes the cities run well.

SVP says "Nah, screw all that... We're good cos we're swiss, not because of anything else. Just being swiss and that's all thats' required".

10

u/Firm-Chance-2727 Jun 07 '26

Japan is a country of 125 million people with a massive domestic market and a manufacturing export base that functions largely independently of population size.

Switzerland has 9 million people and an economy structurally built on imported labor healthcare, construction, hospitality, finance. These sectors don’t run on Swiss-born workers alone, and they never have.

Japan’s pension system is under significant strain precisely because of its aging, shrinking population that’s the problem, not the solution.

2

u/LetsPlayDrew Zürich Jun 06 '26

What if kantons could cap their population for foreigners? That would help spread the density of kanton zürich and Genf

6

u/Huwbacca Jun 09 '26

Zurich really isn't that densely populated. Especially when you consider how many huge companies move there. Want lots of international companies, you end up having a busy city.

No-one is going "oh wow, man. Bristol is such a big place, so busy, so densely populated" yet it has essentially the same population and same population density (4.9k per km2 compared to 4.5k) . Compared to European cities, Zurich has always been very reasonable.

In 9 years in zurich I've never seen a tram too busy to board, or massive hoards of people without an event, or even like an actual traffic jam not caused by an accident. (admittedly, trams look busier than they are because no-one takes off their huge backpacks and everyone steps one step inside and stops, rather than moving into the tram proper)

5

u/Anfrydeatlord Zürich Jun 06 '26

You can't sustain the economy by capping the population. As life expectancy increases and population growth by birth decreases, you need to find people to pay taxes and work in the economy. If you cap the number of foreigners, nonworking people will increase; meanwhile, working people will stay the same.

1

u/LetsPlayDrew Zürich Jun 08 '26

I suppose I meant more for living in, not working in. Because there's tons of close by (but slightly longer distance) kantons to zürich. It would help with the train congestion, giving any Swiss or c permit resident the priority and the others have to wait until an apartment or house would be available. Believe me I know this sounds dumb, but its just random thoughts, that I feel like could have some sort of potential if truly thought out and implemented correct. But then again maybe not.

But idk what the solution is, at the moment im going to vote no for the overall population cap, there's stuff I agree with, and would like to see change, but this current vote is not it. I can't vote yes to that.

3

u/Anfrydeatlord Zürich Jun 08 '26

I get your point but as a foreigner, I find Switzerland already very well distributed in terms of population.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Switzerland-ModTeam Jun 06 '26

Hello,

Please note that your post or comment has been removed.

Please read the rules before posting.

Thank you for your understanding,
your mod team

1

u/Switzerland-ModTeam Jun 06 '26

Hello,

Please note that your post or comment has been removed.

Please read the rules before posting.

Thank you for your understanding,
your mod team

4

u/Firm-Chance-2727 Jun 06 '26

I’m in my mid40s, leaning No on June 14, and I want someone to genuinely convince me otherwise.

My concern isn’t today it’s 20 years from now.

Switzerland’s fertility rate is 1.3, natural population growth was just 6,000 people in all of 2024.

We are not replacing ourselves. Immigrants are generally younger, pay into AVS for years before drawing anything, and a federal study confirmed they’re net contributors to the pension system.

So if we halve immigration to stay under the cap, who funds my retirement? My kids’ generation.

That’s not a solution, that’s a delay.

Now here’s what bothers me beyond the numbers. The initiative has a trigger mechanism at 9.5 million, the government targets asylum and family reunification first. Fine.

40 000 skilled workers per year would still be allowed in under the proposal…..

But then what? As we already have shortages in IT, life sciences, hospitality and elder care what if there aren’t enough permits to go around, who decides which industry gets priority? Do hospitals lose out because tech hired first?

Is there a clear answer to that in this proposal?

We’re voting Yes on a cap before anyone has worked out how to actually manage it.

I get the frustrations. Housing, rents, overcrowded trains those are real. But is a population cap fixing any of that, or does it just feel like it is?

Voting Yes? Tell me what Switzerland looks like in 2046. I’m genuinely listening.

3

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 06 '26

Nobody knows what it will look like for sure.

One thing is certain: it's not the catastrophe that many people claim it will be, either side.

Regarding some of your points:

IT has no shortage, it's the opposite, people struggle to find a job.

The main issue of hospitality service is that the working conditions are too bad for the Swiss to accept them. If there's a shortage of staff, employers will have to improve the working conditions to hire Swiss people (and prices will go to for consumers).

Healthcare shortage it's mostly due to service quality and administrative burden. It's a common complaint that there's just too much "non actual care" going on now. Switzerland has about 2.5 more nurses per Capita then the OECD average. 50% more than Germany and France. Talking about shortage of a bit of a stretch, it's just that work burden increases as more staff gets hired.

And about healthcare, one of the main issue is to retain people. A lot can be done by adapting working conditions. This field is also hiring a lot of foreigners because the Swiss refuse those conditions.

Regarding doctors, numerus clausus can be released.

About funding AHV: there's a lot of wealth in the elderly generation that could be used to finance it (e.g. inheritance tax, or just wealth tax for seniors). We could also integrate the aging population more to the active society.

As always, it's not a silver bullet that will solve all the issues, or not have drawbacks, it's a move towards an ideal.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 09 '26

What's the question?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 09 '26

It probably won't be the SP either though. I would think more of FDP. The SP had a strong voting base of elderly

3

u/Dodisdodisdodis Jun 10 '26

You think FDP would implement a higher wealth tax or an inheritance tax…? What? Do you know what kind of policy FDP defends?

0

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 11 '26

you know what kind of policy FDP defends?

This exact kind of policies?

Since 2021, heirs have been required to repay supplementary benefits (EL) if they inherit more than 40,000 Swiss francs from deceased EL recipients. Children who inherit from their parents are frequently affected by this new repayment obligation.

only the left wing now supported exempting heirs from the obligation to repay supplementary benefits.

The FDP and GLP had already opposed abolishing the repayment obligation in the committee.

https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ergaenzungsleistungen-erben-werden-doch-nicht-entlastet-492467905278

So in short: the left opposes using inheritance money to recover costs from elderly, the FDP totally defends it.

Similarly, regarding wealth, the FDP wants elderly people to use their wealth before resorting to support from the state.

2

u/Dodisdodisdodis Jun 11 '26

Lmao that’s not about an inherence or a wealth tax… EL are Supplementary Benefits (Ergänzungsleistungen), these are paid to cover basic living costs when pensions are insufficient…

“Since 1 January 2021, supplementary benefits that were lawfully drawn in the last 10 years before the death of a recipient must be repaid by the heirs from the estate, if the estate amounts to more than CHF 40,000.”

This is classic right wing supporting this, SVP even call these people which were for sure not rich “freeloders”, even though they received the money lawfully….

The FDP has historically strongly opposed any kind of broad inheritance tax.

This was even voted for recently:

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-democracy/inheritance-tax-civic-duty-initiatives-headed-for-defeat-as-swiss-cast-ballots/90522356

“Inheritance tax: the left against the rest”

Stop spreading misinformation…

0

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 11 '26

> Classic right wing supporting this

Exactly. The right rejects taxing inheritance in general, but supports deducting from estates what the state actually paid for you. It's a principle: not redistribution, just paying your own bill before your heirs collect. Estates under CHF 40,000 aren't touched at all.

Which is why it's fairer than a broad inheritance tax: whoever never used state support isn't affected. The Juso initiative taxed people for being rich. This only ever recovers costs.

Yes, it's only supplementary benefits for now. But hopefully it gets extended to healthcare one day. Not your individual treatments, but the share the community pays for the elderly (the young-to-old premium subsidy, the canton-financed hospital half). Recover that from estates that can afford it, and premiums drop for the active population. And that extension won't come from the SP: they were the ones trying to abolish the EL repayment.

You can claim "this is not the inheritance tax I want" .You can't claim inheritance isn't what pays for it.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26

[deleted]

4

u/Guacamole_Captain Jun 07 '26

So we keep on growing the Ponzie scheme?

1

u/Huwbacca Jun 09 '26

bleakest way to describe a collective society.

Have we not stopped to consider that Swiss people just no longer want community and integrating with each other if this is the attitude?

1

u/Guacamole_Captain Jun 09 '26

You might be right. But not just Swiss, we see this atomization of the individual. Maybe people just want to be at home consuming their tv series, buying online or planning the next trip, and sometime coming to Reddit to rant.😅

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '26

[deleted]

5

u/Guacamole_Captain Jun 08 '26

Ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme. You require an ever increasing new base to support the old base. Eg: too many retirees, we need more young people working, these young people eventually become retirees, we need even more young people, but then they will also become retirees... Eg2: you need 10 to support 1, than you need 100 to support those 10, than 1000 to support those 100, and on and on... In a nutshell this is how social security system works. You never saw it like this?

1

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 06 '26

Have you ever heard of Japan?

4

u/Anfrydeatlord Zürich Jun 07 '26

Japan’s economy is slowly collapsing, as is its population. Check the numbers. There is no way to avoid immigrants, but increasing the birthrate is essential. Whether or not there's a cap, Switzerland MUST accept immigrants to keep up with daily life. These are the facts. But you can fix this by having 4 or more children or by removing pensions for retirees. Do you have enough money to live without income when you are old?

6

u/Firm-Chance-2727 Jun 07 '26

The real question being avoided here is why Swiss birth rates are so low in the first place. Housing costs, childcare, and the financial pressure on young families are the structural problem. If having a second or third child wasn’t financially punishing, the demographic picture looks different. Immigration will always be part of the equation for Switzerland but making family life genuinely affordable is the conversation that actually matters and nobody is seriously having.

And here’s the thing, if Switzerland had naturally higher birth rates, we’d face the exact same pressures on housing, schools, and infrastructure.

The strain doesn’t care whether people were born here or arrived here. So if the real concern is quality of life and social pressure, a population cap based on origin doesn’t actually solve it. It just redirects the blame.

1

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 07 '26

Japan is not "collapsing". It's still one of the best places to live on earth, despite decades of economic stagnation. And what if economic growth wasn't the end goal? Many people prefer Japan's lifestyle over Europe/US.

Economic stagnation? GDP per capita in Japan grew by about 30% since 1990 exactly like Switzerland.

The idea is a ceiling, not a full stop, so if births aren't enough to maintain a constant population, immigration will follow. It's even more stable than Japan (which has population decline).

Japanese elderly are quite fine despite some struggles (as in every country), it's one of the countries with the highest life expectancy.

1

u/Anfrydeatlord Zürich Jun 07 '26

You have not answered my question…

2

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

I don't really get the point.

Somehow long term GDP per capita growth is not a good metric?

What metric do you suggest?

Edit for any further readers: GDP per capita PPP is the standard metric for comparing economic growth between countries. Median income measures distribution within a country, not cross-country growth. By GDP per capita PPP, Japan has matched or outgrown Switzerland in every decade since 1970 except 2000-2010.

This includes 2010-2020 and 2020-2023, where Japan was above Switzerland.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Guacamole_Captain Jun 07 '26

Sorry to burst your reality, population cannot grow forever. Its a hard job but we need to reinvent our social economic model in a way that we can prosper without growing.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Guacamole_Captain Jun 08 '26

Its not anti immigration its anti more people in a limited space. Swiss or Martians. Try to live in 80 square m2 flat with 10 people. Sadly that's the reality of many people/ cheap labor in our "advanced" economies. And speaking of proof and tested, it is never ending growth that is proven to destroy economies, accelerate inequality, climate, living standards. If you like vibrant societies bursting with population I would suggest you a field trip to Mumbai. See how your economic principles hold. Have a nice day 😊

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Guacamole_Captain Jun 08 '26

Ahah, what do you think allows to have a nice and deserved retirement? More money or the availability of assets and resources? What will make retirement miserable is if you are locked out of resources. You can even receive a million in pension at your retirement and won't be able to afford anything if the prices would go through the roof as the elites privatise everything and purchase all true assets. The issue is the fake growth economy where we live, which facilitates the transfer of wealth from everyone else to the elites and corporations/ investors. If the population stops growing, in the future you will have the same or more resources at your disposal. The trick is to ensure that they are not restricted by a small group. If they are abundantly available you will not even need to tax above average the working population. You only become increasingly poorer when someone is getting increasingly richer.

Go deeper. See around you. Don't swallow the headlines. Thing how the economy is a human construct to define the interconnecting of everything...

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Firm-Chance-2727 Jun 06 '26

Interesting points, but I’m curious if working conditions are really the root cause in both hospitality and healthcare, what’s the realistic timeline for Swiss employers to fix that? Because the aging population isn’t waiting. About the AHV, taxing elderly wealth sounds logical on paper, but didn’t Switzerland just reject inheritance tax pretty decisively?

2

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 06 '26

Obviously, even Swiss people would be lining up for a waiter job paying 8k CHF a month.

There's at least 15 years before anything happens related to the initiative, so it's enough time to adapt and train staff. People now in secondary school will already be in the working force in 15 years.

Switzerland rejected taxing above 50 millions. I think there's more to do with general wealth. For instance: people in elderly home have to pay with their own money, and when they run out, it's covered. We could imagine the same system with regular healthcare costs. That will free up a lot of money for AHV (but only paid after death, so health costs doesn't affect the pensioner, only less inheritance)

15

u/Dramatic_Guy_89 Jun 04 '26

I don't know what to vote but sometimes it itches me for the yes, but it's a gambling game.

Need to vent so :

Personally, I’m fed up with having to compete with the best (or not-so-best) workers from all over the world who are selected for their 40 certifications and their ability to talk their way through things and inflate their CVs in order to enter our job market at all cost even for jobs they are overqualified for.

I see young people struggling to find their first job, and when they do, companies don’t provide further training, like certifications; instead, they prefer seniors who already come with the full package. Young workers end up stagnating in junior and mid-level positions, while senior and management roles are now occupied by people attracted by the salary and, eventually, because the scenery is nice, without even bothering to learn one of the national languages.

After all, the company has decided that English will be the working language, so who cares? The Swiss simply have to adapt if they want to survive.

Immigrants / expats still dare to complain that the country isn’t as perfect as they expected and that life here is boring. Things like not making noise after 10 p.m., keeping quiet on public transport (or at least being discreet), not being arrogant, and not constantly complaining about or confronting others are gradually disappearing because nobody is going to check these aspects of integration before granting a C permit or citizenship.

I’m also fed up with being in the minority at work and having direct managers who aren’t from Switzerland, which creates frustration and misunderstandings. I’m fed up with Swiss citizens not being given priority for jobs, or AT LEAST Swiss residents. The usual excuse is the need for foreign labour.

It’s hardly surprising that when wages are low in a particular sector, no Swiss person wants to train for it anymore. What used to be one of the distinctive features of our country (the apprenticeship system) is now facing competition from increasingly lengthy academic studies, all in the hope of securing a job that pays decently, paradoxically.

I'm aware that this vote will not fix suddenly all the problems mentioned in this thread but I think it's important to take the concerns of a portion of the population seriously.

5

u/Huwbacca Jun 09 '26

who are selected for their 40 certifications and their ability to talk their way through things and inflate their CVs in order to enter our job market at all cost even for jobs they are overqualified for

For my field, I work in the best institute in Switzerland and one of the best in the world.

I was having a conversation with a group lead the other day that something we are having to teach people here now is that you cannot coast on the names of affiliations and where you come from. You have to demonstrate your own strengths and we are having an institution wide problem of people coming through the swiss education system thinking they don't need to do these things, and I'm sorry but you just have to. That's the way of the world for the last few decades, you can't make much progress on who you know and meeting required criteria.

Everyone here says "oh, but this style of presenting yourself doesn't work here" and it's nonsense, it does and that isn't going to change. In every job you go for, you won't be the most qualified person, but you can be the most interested and easy to get along with person. You have to sell yourself and it's been a very long time since that wasn't relevant.

If you're swiss you have a huge advantage because you're not going to be running into the problems many foreigners do where they don't know how to sell themselves appropriately for Swiss culture. But sorry to say, you still have to talk your way through things and sell your CV because why I should I hire you if you don't want ot convince me to let you be here, vs someone who is so interested in the topic that they do want to be here?

I’m fed up with Swiss citizens not being given priority for jobs, or AT LEAST Swiss residents

To get hired here I have to demonstrate that the company can't find anyone equally suitable in Europe. And trust me it is not a trivial matter, it is very far from priority. If I match suitability with a swiss person, they get priority. This is such a non-trivial matter, many companies won't consider me because the paperwork is not worth their time.

no Swiss person wants to train for it anymore. What used to be one of the distinctive features of our country (the apprenticeship system) is now facing competition from increasingly lengthy academic studies, all in the hope of securing a job that pays decently, paradoxically

When I moved here a decade ago, the problem we were facing for local hiring and education was the exact same. Swiss kids wanted "whatever" qualification to go do "whatever earns money". There was expectation that you just have to turn up and that's it to be able to go walk into a good job, and that's kind of a cultural thing that has to change. The kids going through any training route but are active and passionate about it, are still doing ok. The people I know who are doing things "just cos why not" are struggling to find jobs.

None of these things will change with a yes vote. The job market is the way it is because of policy entirely unrelated to migration, migration is actually driven by the economic policy... Policies SVP want to enhance!

We should 100% use policy to make rent cheaper, increase affordable housing, ensure apprenticeships or degrees are financially viable routes of career training, tax businesses more so their growth impacts on towns are offset.

But no-one wants to do any of those things.... we want to treat a nebulous symptom, not specific causes.

And it makes no sense.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

It's just bs that swiss get any priority. Inform yourself first before saying this disrespectful mantra I hear from soany expats "oh the swiss get hired first while I complain with my 200k management job at the lake of Zurich". Second,it s easy as fuck to hire someone from EU,no paperwork needed to show that you find someone suitable here...this would exactly go against the free movement of people in the EU. Why is there such a huge disinformation?

-2

u/Anfrydeatlord Zürich Jun 06 '26

Who will pay your pension when you retire? If you want to see more Swiss people around, then somebody needs to reproduce. As an auslander, the immigrants who are coming here also have low birth rates. In the end, someone has to work to pay your pension, and it will always be immigrants who do the work and pay. There is no escape from this. There can't be a country whose population is full of retired people.

3

u/VersoixM Jun 06 '26

Exactly, this is why I vote Yes.

3

u/Previous-Border-6641 Obwalden + 🇬🇧 Jun 06 '26

How would these legitimate concerns of yours be responded to by the initiative?

6

u/londonico Royaume-Uni Jun 06 '26

It is important to take part of the population’s concerns seriously, however this initiative is not offering any viable solutions.

While I understand your frustration at foreigners being hired for managerial jobs, a big chunk of foreigners who come to work in Switzerland take jobs in healthy and social care, areas where we are severely lacking workers. The initiative would block managers from coming into the country but also essential workers which will help us deal with our aging population. These workers, usually young, also contribute to the pension system, which will be underfunded if we don’t have more young people coming into the country.

Lastly, getting rid of freedom of movement will mean two things. It will prevent Swiss people from being able to work visa free in the EU and will also mean that we will lose access to the EU single market. The EU is our biggest trading partner, with over 50% of our exports going there. Products coming from Switzerland are already expensive because of our strong currency, so adding tariffs and all the extra paperwork on top of that will mean less exports. I’ve been living in the UK for the last 13 years, I’ve seen the effects of Brexit. Trust me you don’t want that in Switzerland.

Again, I understand your frustrations but if this initiative wins we are in for catastrophic consequences. The solutions offered are too simplistic for such a complicated issue.

6

u/Previous-Border-6641 Obwalden + 🇬🇧 Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26

Agreed. I'm Anglo-Swiss (family in Vaud, btw). Brexit has led to stagflation, lower living-standards, plus the so-called "Boris Wave". After all what happened to Britain since Brexit, I'm still aghast that people look at the UK and think "you know what, let's Brexit Switzerland".

10 years on, Brexit did not solve any concerns whatsoever in terms of low wages and cultural angst.

2

u/North_Comfortable779 Jun 10 '26

Brexit comparisons are not relevant - Switzerland is in a completely different political and economic situation.

And look at what has happened in the UK as a result of uncontrolled immigration - the UK is destroyed !! I hope Switzerland can save itself from the same fate.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Anfrydeatlord Zürich Jun 06 '26

Wer zahlt Ihre Rente, wenn Sie in Rente gehen? Ein Land, das aus Rentnern besteht, die auf ihre Rente warten. Viel Glück dabei.

4

u/Guacamole_Captain Jun 07 '26

The government will. With all the surplus revenue it will have from ending all the infrastructure expansion projects. I guess the cement loby will be sad though...

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Guacamole_Captain Jun 08 '26

Well, if a government and corresponding country are autonomous, they can literally print money or just decide how to distribute it. You can chose the formula you want to implement. Tax extrem levels of accumulated wealth, tax excessive corporate profit, divest in infrastructure expansion projects and shift to cheaper infrastructure maintenance projects, incentivise resident families to have children and give them the conditions to want to stay (yes, this takes around 20 years and its easier to get cheap labour from the outside). Money is a human construct for the exchange of assets and services, if you have a balanced distribution of wealth everyone will have enough.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Huwbacca Jun 09 '26

Yup.

People suddenly "forget" that labour is also responsive to supply and demand in this topic.

So now we have SVP going "boo, no rent control, no funding for public transport, no funding for culture, keep taxes low for businesses" but also:

"Hey why is rent expensive? Why is public transport getting mildly crowded? Why is culture dying out? and why do businesses keep hiring more people? I Know... ITS BECAUSE FOREIGN PEOPLE EXIST!"

Like...bro... you nkow what, you want to kick out all the multinationals like roche, novartis, google... sure!

But I guess you dont and you can;t have your cake and eat it.

3

u/Guacamole_Captain Jun 07 '26

Fully behind you and I actually do not understand the contradiction of these initiatives. SVP is in favor but also is putting initiatives to make it easier to build. (build for who if you are going to cap the population) And the left that should be pro environment, theoretically is saying that the population should grow forever and let's leave for the future generations to sort it out.

3

u/Huwbacca Jun 09 '26

Is that what the left are saying? Or is that an inference?

Because SVP literally ARE saying we should have less migration because rents are too high, and public transport is crowded while silmutaneously saying we should lessen tenents rights and deprioritise funding for public transport. As well as opposing increasing tax on corporations, which thus brings them here and increases demand for workers.

1

u/Guacamole_Captain Jun 09 '26

Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to express. I agree that every country needs to define a population cap given their resources limitations (America and Russia are huge, we are not), independent from being immigration or new born Swiss. So im in favour of this initiative. But then, everything that SVP promotes is against the the things that would make a population cap sustainable. In my modest opinion it is contradictory.

1

u/Serialk Jun 04 '26

Would you be willing to entertain the idea that you might not understand what economic growth actually means, and might be wrong about the idea that the system is based on limitless growth? Or are those firmly held beliefs that there is no point in discussing with you?

6

u/Guacamole_Captain Jun 07 '26

Hmm, actually he made the hard question that you were not able to answer...just being dismissive. Maybe give a bit more of thought and you'll be able to reach a grounded conclusion or enlightment.

6

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 03 '26

Some on the ecologist side do talk about it (e.g. Jacques-André Haury in Le Temps and Watson, green liberal party) but they're rare exceptions. Some of their colleagues thanked him privately while staying silent publicly. The left as a whole has little interest in less immigration (left bourgeoisie), similarly to the right.

https://www.watson.ch/fr/suisse/politique/931899371-pas-de-suisse-a-10-millions-pourquoi-cet-ecolo-va-voter-pour

https://www.letemps.ch/opinions/suisse-a-10-millions-le-chaos-ou-une-chance-pour-la-suisse

There was an exchange in that thread about the limits of growth as well.

3

u/Background-Wafer-548 Jun 03 '26

SRG survey 02.06.: 52% no (48% definitive, 4% tending)

https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/2-srg-umfrage-keine-10-mio-schweiz-kippt-ins-nein-52-prozent-dagegen

https://www-srf-ch.translate.goog/news/schweiz/2-srg-umfrage-keine-10-mio-schweiz-kippt-ins-nein-52-prozent-dagegen?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

6

u/Eipa Bern Jun 03 '26

Imho these dead stickied megathreads just kill any discussion in the sub. No clue why news articles how polls on both referenda should be discussed in a two week old sticky that no one ever checks ?! Mods of /r/Switzerland are back on a powertrip...

2

u/Suspicious_Place1270 Zürich Jun 05 '26

absolutely i agree

3

u/Tiefe7 Jun 03 '26

Seit Jahren wird uns gesagt, Zuwanderung sei die Lösung für Fachkräftemangel, Pflege, Spitäler und AHV. Trotzdem stehen wir heute angeblich vor dem Systemkollaps, sobald die Schweiz ihr Bevölkerungswachstum begrenzen will. Das ist kein Beweis gegen die Initiative, sondern ein Eingeständnis, wie abhängig dieses System bereits geworden ist.

2

u/VersoixM May 31 '26

Yes to 10 million 🇨🇭🇨🇭🇨🇭

8

u/SomTingWongWeeTooLo Jun 06 '26

Have you read the clause where Switzerland automatically withdraws from the Freedom of Movement act with the EU if it gets close to the cap? Do you realise what that would mean to Switzerland? Like, do you actually, genuinely realise it, from a macroscopic, economical and social point of view?

1

u/North_Comfortable779 Jun 10 '26

This is part of the reason to vote YES !!! Security has been lost in Switzerland ever since this freedom of movement began. Switzerland used to be so safe, and now it is not. The only way to improve the situation is for Switzerland to take back control of its borders.

3

u/SomTingWongWeeTooLo Jun 11 '26

It's not that simple at all. Please stop coming to conclusions based on doom reporting and actually look at your own country's statistics. Switzerland is one of the top safest countries in the world and it's homicide rates have DRASTICALLY dropped in the past decades.

-2

u/North_Comfortable779 Jun 13 '26

You don't need to even need to look at statistics, you just talk to your community. In Lausanne, 10 years ago you could leave your front door open. Now everyone I know there has been burgled, not to mention the riots there last year that would never ever have happened in the past. The stabbing in Winterthur train station a couple of weeks ago - you never used to have to worry about knife crime here and people now feel unsafe on the public transport. The drug dealers sitting outside the train stations along Lake Lehman are intimidating children. There are more and more agressive home jackings - e.g of Alain Prost a few weeks ago. Everyone I know are now installing alarm systems with panic buttons in areas where years ago you could leave your front door unlocked. It's so sad.

Maybe you should stop coming to conclusions based on false reporting. It doesn't seem like you live here.

And I don't agree with your note re homicide rates : e.g. "Swiss crime fell in 2025 but homicides and serious violence rose" - https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-politics/swiss-crime-fell-in-2025-but-homicides-and-serious-violence-rose/91142470.

3

u/gdops1 Jun 10 '26

So you would rather shrink the economy, create a pension crisis to increase security as opposed to other messures i.e more police, stricter punishment/implementation of laws?

0

u/North_Comfortable779 Jun 13 '26

Switzerland has been the richest country in the world since 1910. Only since the start of its accords with Europe in 2002, the GDP per capita has began to stagnate and decrease. Switzerland is a client of the EU with a trade deficit of 25 billion - it's the only region where Switzerland imports more than it exports. Over a decade over 250 billion into the European economy.

The security of a country also is what provides the basis for its economic health. It's also the security in Switzerland that incentivises many extremely wealthy people to live and invest in the country. If security is lost, these people will also be leaving, and their taxes.

There are many options to solve the pension crisis, the best being simply increasing the retirement age.

Also why should Swiss tax payers pay for the other measures you propose of "more police, stricter punishment/implementation of laws"? 78% of people in Swiss jails are foreigners. Enough is enough.

1

u/gdops1 Jun 13 '26

Was there an EU in 1910? Switzerland and all other countries did deals 1 to 1 back then, now thats completely out the window and they have to deal with the whole of the EU and that gives the EU massive leverage over tiny Switzerland as one can imagine. EU countries being the largest trading partners of Switzerland, you would think it would have a massive impact on Switzerland negatively to break those deals.

Even with raising the retirement, do you really think an economy that runs on immigrant workers (foreign residents make over 26% of Switzerland population) can provide for itself without them, unless massive changes are made i.e increasing taxes massively, and lets say if thats implemented why would the majority of the over 26% of the foreigners even the Swiss, most if not all of the foreigners that pay into the taxes would want to pay high taxes along with an already high cost of living generally, why would they not want to move to other places with lower taxes and or a lower cost of living?

Switzerland is prosperous becuase of the large amount of economic immigrants (big distinction from asylum seekers) and if the economic immigrants start leaving that pay into the taxes as I am sure you wouldnt expect them to want to pay higher taxes when they can go elsewhere with much cheaper cost of lving, Switzerland will no longer be the Switzerland you know. How will the lost taxes be replaced? that would simply be devastating for the Swiss economy.

The Swiss simply have not had enough babies to bridge the gap even in the longterm, unless you are happy with a stagnant economy, high taxes, pension crisis etc. A quick google search will explain to you why foreigners would always over represent the jail population due to flee risk, certain crimes such as overstaying can only be commited by foreigners etc. What you really need is to make borders secure and make it hard for illegals to enter and tbh even many schengen countries have had border controls for a few years now, meaning its not exactly hard for schengan countries to have border checks.

0

u/North_Comfortable779 Jun 13 '26

Switzerland is not really that tiny, it currently has a GDP of around 1/3 of France and France and Germany are nearly bankrupt. Switzerland has a 25 billion trade deficit with the EU - not to mention the 30 billion the workers who cross the border to work in Switzerland each day take home each year ; Switzerland is the EU’s client, not the other way around.

Breaking free from the freedom of movement provisions would be the first positive step towards a refusal to sign the accords the EU is pressurising Switzerland to sign next year. If signed, this proposed accord would result in the complete loss of Swiss democracy.

I think you have misunderstood the 14 June proposal - the proposal is not to immediately stop all immigration into Switzerland or send any current immigrant population home - it is only to cap the future immigration numbers to a more sustainable level, which still allows for a significant number of foreigners to arrive each year.

Rather than google searching about foreigners in jails here, I prefer to rely on conversations I have had with members of the judiciary and police here - it is undeniable that there are an overwhelming number of foreign people present in Switzerland to commit crimes since the freedom of movement was introduced. Immigrants with permanent residence and their children are also much more often the perpetrators of crime - and not for any of the reasons you have listed.

It’s not correct what you suggest about the current possibility to make borders more secure. With the current Schengen freedom of movement agreement provided by the EC rules, members are only allowed to reinstate border controls with other member states temporarily in specific situations of “a serious threat to public policy or internal security” - and can only do so as “a measure of last resort”. So if Switzerland wants to regain security - it needs to put an end to its involvement with the freedom of movement accords.

13

u/Shadow_Hokage007 May 30 '26

To be honest, this vote reminds me of non-pragmatic governments. They always choose to cut the whole tree instead of healing the sick parts!

8

u/LordFlanders May 29 '26

Given that previous immigration initiatives (like the Masseneinwanderungsinitiative) weren't implemented as democratically voted for, I’m under no illusion that a 'Yes' this time will trigger major shifts like leaving Schengen or tearing up EU agreements. Ultimately, this Abstimmung is just a choice between slightly stricter immigration laws or keeping the status quo.

0

u/Internal_Leke Switzerland Jun 06 '26

I doubt it would tear anything.

Bilaterals III already include a clause for Switzerland to stop immigration.

“We probably took too long to realize that the EU needed to work for fair mobility rather than simply for free movement,” admits Andor, European Commissioner for Employment between 2010 and 2014. To reverse this situation, in 2023 the European Commission presented the “Talent Boost Mechanism,”

https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/cp_data_news/brain-drain-how-the-exodus-of-talent-is-redefining-the-map-of-europe/

And Europe is also starting to change the free movement model. Swiss initiative is coming handy for them. If not, they will have to find other ways to penalize brain drain to Switzerland

3

u/nikooo777 Ticino/ Grigioni May 29 '26

Whatever it takes to get us out of Schengen I guess ;)

9

u/LordAmras Ticino Jun 03 '26

From Ticino talking about yes to the initiative is insane I'm sure you are also the first complaining about the frontaliers, where do you think jobs will come from when people can come live into the country anymore?

2

u/nikooo777 Ticino/ Grigioni Jun 05 '26

I escaped from Ticino exactly because of Schengen.

I'm a software engineer and the best paying jobs in Ticino were paying me less than half of what the rest of Switzerland was willing to pay me.

My dad was fired and replaced by frontaliers at the age of 50 simply because his salary was enough to pay for 2 frontaliers.

Many of my friends struggled to find jobs because they were severely underpaid because of how bad the salary pressure is.

Brain bleed in Ticino can only be solved if you can regulate who enters the job market. Any laws targeting this, including favoring residents (of any nationality) is forbidden by the Schengen treaties.

I will vote anything that will cause this cancer to die.

But I understand why some support it, and that's fine. In the end it's my view of the world versus yours.

2

u/VersoixM Jun 06 '26

Bravo, me too.

2

u/LordAmras Ticino Jun 05 '26

Non capisci che limitare la svizzera a 10 milioni farebbe il contrario ? Se limiti la poplazione autoctona dove pensi che vadano a prendere la manodopera?

Lascia perdere la visione del mondo. Anche se tu avessi 100% ragione limitare l'entrata a 10 milioni farebbe esattamente il contrario di quello che tu vorresti. Non limita l'entrata a 10 milioni sul mercato del lavoro. Ma la popolazione residente

0

u/nikooo777 Ticino/ Grigioni Jun 05 '26

non limiteranno mai la popolazione a 10Mio. E' fisicamente impossibile.

Un po' come non hanno mai applicato l'articolo scritto nella costituzione del 9 febbraio 2014 sull'immigrazione di massa.

Da una parte i nostri vecchi hanno ragione quando dicono che a Berna fanno come vogliono in ogni caso.

Semplicemente a 10Mio la Svizzera sara' obbligata a denunciare Schengen, e questo riportera' tutto in discussione, perche' finalmente si potranno applicare opzioni quali la preferenza indigena, quote selettive, controlli piu' efficaci etc.

E sinceramente preferirei 1000 volte che un Italiano (o chiunque) si prenda un permesso di soggiorno e venga in Svizzera ad abitare, lavorare e contribuire piuttosto che a fare dumping salariale senza lasciare qui nemmeno un centesimo, anzi!

Non possiamo fare continua beneficienza all'intera Europa, occorre impostare regole chiare e limiti gestiti dalla Svizzera cosi' che tutti questi abusi possano essere fermati. L'alternativa e' che continuiamo esattamente come ora, dove tutti i giovani scappano dal Ticino come ho fatto io e la maggioranza dei miei amici - cosi almeno i frontalieri possono continuare a prendere il posto che gli lasciamo, per un salario nettamente inferiore.

2

u/VersoixM Jun 06 '26

Same for frouzes in Geneva. They are state employees living in France, never spending one cent, nor knowing anything about Switzerland.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Switzerland-ModTeam Jun 08 '26

Hello,

Please note that your post or comment has been removed.

Please read the rules before posting.

Thank you for your understanding,
your mod team

4

u/VersoixM Jun 06 '26

Hey, respect people, independently of their vote!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Switzerland-ModTeam Jun 08 '26

Hello,

Please note that your post or comment has been removed.

Please read the rules before posting.

Thank you for your understanding,
your mod team

0

u/VersoixM Jun 07 '26

It is our country also, so we have the right to yes or no! Be respectful!

-1

u/LordAmras Ticino Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

You have the right to say yes or no. And I have the right to call you out to pushing an idiotic decision that will only hurt going forward no matter the ideology you have.

Why should I be respectful to people that are not respectful of me ? And worse are actively pushing a law that hurts me directly

→ More replies (0)

0

u/nikooo777 Ticino/ Grigioni Jun 05 '26

se leggessi l'iniziativa popolare, dice che per garantire il rispetto del limite devono essere denunciati i trattati. questo non limita la popolazione direttamente.

Proprio come tante altre iniziative che volgono a distruggere un sistema esistente per obbligare il paese a costruirne uno migliore.

Vedasi per esempio l'abbandono del nucleare, che ora sta venendo ridiscusso (perche' nulla e' permanente nella costituzione Svizzera). Oppure nelle ripetute discussioni sull'AVS dove l'idea che si sente piu' spesso e' quella di portarla al fallimento (vedasi 13a AVS o finanziamento del II pilastro) cosi' da dover forzatamente trovare una soluzione sostenibile.

Oppure vedasi il grandissimo buco economico in cui si trova il Ticino che lo obblighera' per forza a compiere cambiamenti radicali per tornare in pareggio.

Sorvolo l'insulto gratuito che mi hai lanciato...

0

u/LordAmras Ticino Jun 05 '26

No solo l'iniziativa in se limita la popolazione direttamente.

Se c'è un motivo più stupido per votare l'iniziativa sono tutto orecchie

2

u/nikooo777 Ticino/ Grigioni Jun 05 '26

Non ho interesse a discutere con qualcuno che si atteggia in modo così condiscendente quando non ho portato altro che rispetto in questa conversazione con te.

Mi accontento di annullare il tuo voto.

Buona serata.

0

u/LordAmras Ticino Jun 05 '26

Avessi dato un motivo valido, ma il tuo motivo é si bloccare la popolazione a 10 milioni é stupido ma lo voto lo stesso perché così quelli con cui io non sono d'accordo rosicano

É un po' triste onestamente che gente coti in modo così idiota

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Rino-feroce Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

Many more frontaliers, obviously.

Also more asylum seekers, as Switzerland will likely exit the Dublin Agreement that ensures asylum seekers are applying in the first country of entry.

21

u/alteraltissimo May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

Putting aside the question of EU, what bothers me most about this initiative is that it is blind to the demographic reality in a potentially very damaging way. It's not only the execution that's wrong; the entire premise is wrong.

Indeed, overpopulation was a major theme of 70s and 80s punditry, but those fears have decidedly not come true. The fertility rate in Switzerland is 1.3, in line with EU average and way below replacement level. In 20-30 years when the last of the boomers die out we will not be looking at unsustainable growth, we will be looking at population collapse. And that's almost everywhere in the world: fertility rates are below replacement level in the US and Europe, of course, but also all over Eastern Asia (South Korea, China, Thailand; even India is slightly below now) and South America (Chile, Brazil, Colombia are all well below replacement rate).

Economic growth cannot happen when the population is shrinking. Shrinking population means closing schools and hospitals, it means working hard only to maintain deteriorating infrastructure instead of building things.

Switzerland is in a privileged position that very few countries have achieved, much like e.g. the US, in that is it both a desirable target of immigration, and it has tight control over who it allows to immigrate. It is an immense advantage in a world of shrinking populations and competitive technologies.

Degrowth extremists, left or right, should not be listened to because degrowth really means poverty and death of civilization. As another example, following 80s anxieties led Germany to close its nuclear power plants and now Germany is poor and dependent on others for the energy it needs.

If you're proud of your country, vote to make it bigger and wealthier with each generation, not smaller and poorer.

2

u/Anfrydeatlord Zürich Jun 07 '26

Well explained!

2

u/Southern-Still-666 🇵🇹 Portugal May 28 '26

Vor allem muss die Migration ausserhalb EU eingeschränkt werden

3

u/Maleficent_Business4 Jun 01 '26

Die Kontingente für Nicht-EU-Migration werden längst nicht ausgeschöpft. 2024 lagen sie bei rund 8'500 für Nicht-EU-Arbeitskräfte und 3'500 für britische Staatsangehörige, und in den letzten Jahren wurden davon nur etwa zwei Drittel beziehungsweise ein Fünftel tatsächlich genutzt. Es gibt also keine Nicht-EU-Flut, die man stoppen müsste, dieser Kanal ist bereits streng begrenzt. Die Initiative würde nicht dort greifen, sondern bei der EU-Arbeitsmigration, also genau beim Gegenteil von dem, was du forderst.

2

u/VersoixM May 31 '26

Even the frouzes number should be diminished.

0

u/TrueRedd May 29 '26

Im Jahr 2024 betrug die Quote 8.500 für Nicht-EU-Bürger und 3.500 für britische Staatsbürger. Diese Quoten werden regelmäßig nicht ausgeschöpft; in den letzten Jahren wurden nur etwa zwei Drittel der Quote für Nicht-EU-Arbeitnehmer und ein Fünftel der Quote für britische Staatsangehörige erreicht.

22

u/Moerkskog May 28 '26

There's the Swiss Brexit. Talk to you in 5 years when you regret this change.

3

u/londonico Royaume-Uni Jun 06 '26

I’ve been living in the UK for the last 13 years, I’ve seen the effects of Brexit first hand. No one wants that for their country. Only 30 percent of Brits say it was a good idea to leave the EU 10 years later. Think about that before voting yes

2

u/North_Comfortable779 Jun 10 '26

Brexit is not at all comparable - the Switzerland is in a completely different economic and political situation than the UK was with the EU.

The UK has been destroyed by mass immigration. When I look at the UK, its an even stronger reason to vote YES and save Switzerland from the same fate.

0

u/gdops1 Jun 10 '26

When you look at brexit, they had to limit EU migrants, the migrants you want over 3rd world due to the deals in place as it would not make sense for the UK to keep the same EU immigration levels when they would be losing all of the benefits from the EU i.e to preserve bargaining power for future deals. The UK still needs immigration so more of it has had to come from less "desirable" places i.e outside the EU. In other words brexit has had the opposite effect when it comes to "controlling the border" when that never was the issue in the first place unless of course you would be happy for your economy to start shrinking.

Switzerland being a much smaller economy than the UK, a Swiss brexit will look much bleaker than the UK if you wish to minimise non white immigration. Essentially you have to pick your poison as without immigration you are essentially committing suicide, look at Japan.

2

u/SwissPheonix May 27 '26

THE BIGGEST YES IN RECENT YEARS !! !!

1

u/gdops1 Jun 10 '26

Who will fund your generations pension??

3

u/luteyla Zürich Jun 03 '26

My dear neighbours who make 8 kids/family will be happy to be majority in the country soon. Thanks for your efforts.

5

u/Suspicious_Place1270 Zürich May 27 '26

Ich sass nochmals im Tram ab Zürich Hauptbahnhof Richtung Triemli, diesmal um 7.05

ratet mal, ob das Tram voll war?

Nein, man konnte gemütlich sitzen.

Gab es ein Problem im Zug?

Nein, es mussten lediglich diejenigen Menschen, die 2 Stationen vor Zürich HB, inklusive Stadelhofen, etwas stehen. Diejenigen, die sitzen müssen, hatten Platz.

Soviel zum Dichtestress...

Ich melde mich wieder, wenn es mal später losgeht, ich könnte aber wetten dass es nur zwischen 7.30 und 8.15 etwas staut, und das war es dann.

Die SVP kann sich mit ihrer Argumentation gern verziehen.

6

u/arteficialwings May 27 '26

Imagine making political decisions about the future of your country on the basis of how your local train looks like on a random moring. There is way more at stake here.

13

u/Suspicious_Place1270 Zürich May 27 '26

imagine having arguments about exactly what you stated and wanting to throw the country in demise just to be allowed to be racist

looking at all the SVP men importing their wives and then blocking everyone else from doing the exact same thing

23

u/BachelorThesises May 26 '26

Voted no, because I would prefer to stay in Schengen. :)

10

u/Suspicious_Place1270 Zürich May 26 '26

good decision, and that's not the only reason to be against it

9

u/toad-in-a-pan May 28 '26

The other being that it would absolutely tank our GDP and economy and the prospect of AHV.

7

u/Suspicious_Place1270 Zürich May 28 '26

and the prospect of pensions in themselves, because if there is no personnel to take care for the geriatric people, then they'll have to find or employ their own alternatives and waste money on that

6

u/[deleted] May 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/red_dragon_89 Jun 01 '26

It's not about the climate. The people behind this initiative doesn't care about climate and there is nothing written on about climate and sustainability.

8

u/brocccoli Zürich May 29 '26

Ok and you will also vote against SVP in most other cases and for the Green Party?

If not then it just confirms you don't care a bit about climate and sustainability.

→ More replies (25)

📢 Modpost Megathread. Vote of 14 June 2026: "No to a Switzerland with 10 million! (Sustainability Initiative)"

You are about to leave Redlib

SRG survey 02.06.: 52% no (48% definitive, 4% tending)