Swiss deeply divided on ten million population cap

With less than two weeks to go, the campaign is heating up. Keystone / Urs Flueeler

Swissinfo has received dozens of comments about the Swiss People’s Party initiative to cap the population at ten million. Fears of overpopulation mixed with concerns of a “Swiss Brexit” reflect the degree of polarisation surrounding the issue.

Swiss citizens are set to vote this month on the “No to ten million!External link” initiative, submitted by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party. The text calls for the country’s population to be capped at ten million by 2050 and sets out several levels of immigration restrictions to achieve this. Termination of the free movement of persons with the European Union (EU) would not be ruled out as a last resort.

>> >> Learn more about the initiative and the arguments for and against it:

With this proposal, also known as the “sustainability initiative”, the People’s Party is pursuing a dual objective: slowing down population growth, which is deemed incompatible with maintaining a high quality of life in the long term; and limiting immigration, seen as the main driver of rapid population growth.

Neck-and-neck race

The campaign is intense and the subject highly polarising in Switzerland, where voter intentions for and against are still evenly split in the polls.

The online discussion on the Swissinfo site also gave rise to sharply contrasting views. More than half of commenters said they agreed with the People’s Party proposal. Nearly a quarter were firmly against, while the same proportion had not yet decided either way.

>> All the Swissinfo user comments can be found here:

A country seen as overcrowded…

Most of the commenters in favour of the initiative say there are already too many people in Switzerland. The available land, infrastructure and housing can no longer absorb strong population growth. It is therefore vital, they believe, to limit this growth so as to ease the pressure.

“For Switzerland, one of the smallest countries on the European continent […], it is not desirable to have so many people,” says Arlette Fischer-Grand. ProperD echoes this sentiment: “How many people do they think they can squeeze into Switzerland? […] If you try to pour three litres of water into a one-litre container, the extra water will simply spill over. There is not enough space for so many people”.

Some even believe a population cap should have been set much earlier. “In my opinion, it should already have been capped at eight million,” writes Major Wedgie. “Swiss infrastructure is not made for such large numbers of people on a permanent basis,” and is already “packed full”.

>> We looked at the concept of a population cap in this article:

A country seen as less and less Swiss

“Each year, we’re adding the equivalent of the city of Lucerne,” Hiderosi points out. “And it’s the taxpayers who bear the additional infrastructure costs.” This argument, about the cost of immigration, comes up repeatedly. H. Trickler agrees: “If immigration is not limited, it will generate extremely high costs for the general public, with no benefit to the local population.”

Several people comment that immigration mainly benefits the business community, and not the population as a whole. This is the view of Dario Giandeini, who has seen Switzerland grow from seven million to eight million and now to nine million inhabitants. “Only a few people, really just a tiny minority, can be said to be better off economically,” he asserts. “For the middle class […] everything has got worse.”

Other commenters see limiting immigration as essential above all to preserve Swiss identity and culture. “Uncontrolled population growth will inevitably lead to the destruction of the Swiss social fabric, as the pressure from foreign cultures becomes too great,” writes Elena Lacroix-Jaeggy.

She believes that capping immigration is “essential for our own survival”. BLATMAN, too, sees this as the “only solution if Switzerland is to remain Swiss.”

Fear of an own goal

The initiative’s opponents, meanwhile, take a very different view of immigration. Most point out in their comments that many economic sectors in Switzerland rely heavily on foreign labour.

“If we didn’t have foreign workers and cross-border commuters filling roles across various sectors, we wouldn’t be able to meet demand,” writes Antonella, before adding that an ageing population will increase the need for labour in the future.

According to Urs Glücklich, Switzerland without immigration would be a “country with fewer workers, higher pressure on pensions and healthcare, tighter labour markets, weaker economic growth and a heavier burden per person to sustain the same standard of living.”

Several online commenters are also concerned about the future of relations with the European Union. This is the case of VBK, who fears numerous disadvantages if the initiative passes, in particular the possible termination of the bilateral agreements, which “allow Swiss people to work, study and retire in Europe”, or withdrawal from the Schengen Agreement.

Describing the initiative as “populist”, Jorg Hiker even draws a parallel with the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom. A “yes” vote would, he writes, be “the worst decision for the Swiss economy since the turn of the century”.

>> We examined the possible parallels with Brexit in this article:

An unrealistic solution

Online commenter sophieisslaying is concerned about the potential impact of the initiative on Swiss citizens living abroad. “It would be unfair if, one day, they could no longer return home without difficulty,” she writes.

Like others, she says she understands the concerns about population growth, but she believes that the People’s Party initiative is not the solution. “A rigid limit of ten million inhabitants is not a realistic solution to a complex problem. Politicians should take targeted action: build more housing, improve public transport and promote integration. The challenges posed by population growth cannot be solved with simplistic slogans.”

For Rolrgs, too, the problem is “far too complex to be resolved just by a vote.” Whatever the outcome at the ballot box, it will “unfortunately solve nothing, other than serving as food for thought.”

One thing is certain, though. As shown by the comments by our readers, two conflicting visions of Switzerland, its future and what is good for it will be pitted against each other in the vote on June 14.

>> Read more reader inputs from the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation’s discussion platform Dialogue:

Edited by Samuel Jaberg. Adapted from French by Julia Bassam/gw