Vote to cap Swiss population comes under international scrutiny

The international press notes that, for this campaign, the Swiss People's Party has not used provocative imagery in an effort to appeal to voters beyond its traditional base. Keystone / Christian Beutler

A “worrying shift”? A “recipe for disaster”? Foreign newspapers are showing above-average interest in a vote on June 14 to cap Switzerland’s population. The international media highlight the originality of the proposal, while often taking a critical view of its potential consequences.

The “No to ten million!” immigration initiative has had an international impact that goes beyond the usual Swiss vote. Many foreign media outlets are providing factual explanations of the proposal put forward by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party. The text put to the popular vote on June 14 aims to cap the population at ten million by 2050 by severely restricting immigration. The population is currently around 9.1 million.

The unprecedented nature of the measure plays a major role in the particular interest aroused by the initiative. The American magazine Time External linkemphasises this aspect: “If enacted, Switzerland’s fixed population ceiling may be the first of its kind to be enshrined in law”.

Time notes that other countries have implemented policies aimed at limiting population growth, by restricting immigration or controlling the birth rate. “Those policies are widely seen today as racist and exclusionary,” the magazine says.

>> Is the People’s Party’s demand for a Swiss population cap a novel idea? Our article on the subject:

‘Growing anti-foreigner sentiment in Europe’

Also on the other side of the Atlantic, the New York Times External linkbelieves that the Swiss vote “sharply illustrates how anti-foreigner sentiment in Europe has hardened since the continent’s migration crisis a decade ago”. The daily notes that European governments have also tightened their immigration policies since 2015-2016, “when more than a million people fleeing wars and poverty arrived on the continent’s shores by boat”.

The Quebec daily La PresseExternal link interviews a migration expert who says the Swiss initiative “signals a worrying shift regarding asylum law”. Baptiste Jouzier from McGill University describes the case of Switzerland as “surprising”, because the country doesn’t hesitate to use the Dublin Regulation, which allows it to send asylum-seekers back to the first country they enter the Schengen area.

He adds that “the aggressive campaign waged in the United States by the Trump administration against migrants” is part of the same trend.

“The old Swiss idea of the ‘good foreigner’”

Within the European Union, the German media are interested in the People’s Party strategy. Die ZeitExternal link criticises Switzerland’s largest party for wanting to return to the quota system and the unfair, exploitative status of seasonal workers, which was in force in Switzerland in the second half of the 20th century. “The Swiss People’s Party is reviving the old Swiss idea of the ‘good foreigner’: he comes when needed – then he takes off again. He is a worker, interchangeable, deprived of rights”, writes the German newspaper.

Der SpiegelExternal link identifies two major differences from other votes on migration policy that the People’s Party has won, despite opposition from all the other parties. This time, it’s not just asylum-seekers who are being targeted, but also highly qualified workers from the European Union, who account for the bulk of net immigration.

The German weekly also notes a change in tone. The People’s Party is opting for a more cautious strategy in order to convince people outside its traditional electorate. “The party is moving away from aggressive anti-foreigner posters depicting black sheep or knife-wielding attackers. Instead, it’s focusing on social policy issues such as rising rents and the overloading of infrastructure.”

>> Our explainer on the immigration initiative:

Without migration, what will become of Europe’s economies?

Other media focus on the consequences of terminating the agreement on the free movement of people with the EU, which the initiative envisages as a last resort.

Centre-left British newspaper The Guardian relays the concerns of the business community. It notes that multinationals such as Roche, UBS and Nestlé fear that acceptance of the text would jeopardise the package of bilateral agreements negotiated with Brussels, “on which much of Switzerland’s prosperity rests”. The Guardian also points out that “many Swiss companies rely on EU and other European workers, without whom they will have to relocate abroad, hitting tax revenue and services”.

The conservative Serbian daily Novosti External linkbelieves that the initiative highlights a dilemma facing Europe: does immigration support the economy or transform the state itself?

It says that if the initiative is attracting international attention even before the vote, it’s because it raises issues that many governments are “talking about cautiously, but increasingly loudly”: can continental economies do without migration? And above all: how far are societies prepared to change in order to maintain it?

Another conservative daily, Spain’s La GacetaExternal link, believes that this debate “once again highlights the gulf between the economic elites and a growing section of the population concerned about the material consequences of mass immigration”. The newspaper suggests that immigration benefits the economy first and foremost.

Bloomberg also highlights the social tensions linked to economic growth. According to the American news agency, despite the country’s wealth, resentment persists: not everyone feels they are getting a fair share of the cake. “Behind the luxury shop windows, pristine lakes and snow-capped mountains, this is fuelling a rejection of immigrants”, says Bloomberg.

‘A recipe for disaster’

Other media are questioning the possibility of introducing a population cap in their own countries. This is the case of the Luxembourg TimesExternal link, which polled the main Luxembourg parties on the issue. The result: most political parties consider that following Switzerland’s example “would be a recipe for disaster”, fearing a negative impact on economic growth.

A business representative interviewed by the English-language daily went even further. “This would be a dystopia, because it is the exact opposite of what needs to be done,” he said. The newspaper noted that the right-wing ADR is the only party in parliament that believes the people of Luxembourg should also vote on “long-term population limits”.

Edited by Samuel Jaberg. Translated from French by AI/ts

How we translate with AI

We use automatic translation tools, such as DeepL and Google Translate, for some content.  

Each translated article is carefully reviewed by a journalist for accuracy. Using translation tools gives us the time for more in-depth articles. 

Learn more here about how we work with AI.