5 ms·

So this is essentially a way to reduce immigration to the country? And if they get close to the cap they will "need to take measures, particularly in the areas

• naths88 4mo ago
  Here you go (if you understand French, German, Italian or Romansh, there is a video) https://www.admin.ch/fr/initiative-durabilite https://www.admin.ch/fr/initiative-durabilite https://www.udc.ch/actualites/campagnes/pas-de-suisse-a-10-millions-initiative-pour-la-durabilite/ https://www.udc.ch/actualites/campagnes/pas-de-suisse-a-10-m...
• soco 4mo ago
  The initiator party wants to get Switzerland out of Schengen and of the EU bilaterals - which will happen as a consequence if this passes. Like a Brexit, basically. Edit: but the CHexit will work just fine, because of the Swiss exceptionalism.
  • amunozo 4mo ago
    Way worse than Brexit, as Switzerland is much smaller, landlocked and had no colonies or anything like that. This would be a suicide for the country. Just populism to mobilize the electorate.
    • greenavocado 4mo ago
      Imagine how crazy it is to call a population cap an act of "suicide."
      • ceejayoz 4mo ago
        Imagine how crazy it is to think "Switzerland out of Schengen" isn't. It's a small, landlocked country, surrounded on all sides by Schengen nations, that until recently delegated air defense to the EU outside of their air force's office hours. https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/feb/19/swiss-air-force-ethiopian-airlines-hijacking-office-hours https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/feb/19/swis...
        • seanmcdirmid 4mo ago
          Plenty of us remember when Switzerland was not in the Schengen though. This might be good for Americans, who haven't been able to get working visas in Switzerland since EU countries now have priority. But otherwise, I don't see much changing beyond border procedures.
          • ceejayoz 4mo ago
            As with Brexit, leaving is likely to result in a much stricter regime than the status quo from before the establishment of the system.
            • seanmcdirmid 4mo ago
              True, maybe. It is really hard to say. I'm not pro leaving in any sense (beyond being an American who used to work in Switzerland and wouldn't have that chance today because of the Schengen).
          • luke5441 4mo ago
            Most of the downsides would be on the goods side. Swiss companies would loose market access and the chance of "better" trade agreements is even worse then the UK, especially currently.
        • greenavocado 4mo ago
          I already pass through Swiss customs when driving in, so it makes virtually no difference to me besides slowing things down at the border potentially.
          • ceejayoz 4mo ago
            Schengen covers border controls (i.e. immigration/visits), not customs ones (the stuff you bring with).
            • greenavocado 4mo ago
      • skywhopper 4mo ago
        At the very least it’s an infringement of human rights.
        • joe_mamba 4mo ago
          Yes, because in the human rights bill it says that everyone in the world has the right to go live in Switzerland.
        • azan_ 4mo ago
          Is being able to move to Switzerland really an universal human right?
        • throw-the-towel 4mo ago
          Tell that to the EU.
      • amunozo 4mo ago
        It's not the population cap, but that bilateral agreements with the EU depend on the free movement of people. Without it, Switzerland could lose access to the EU market, which accounts for 51% of their exports. Switzerland cannot just choose whatever they like from the agreements and cancel what they don't. They will have to accept whatever in order to keep in the EU common market, or the country will suffer massive troubles. Switzerland needs the EU much more than the other way around.
    • seanmcdirmid 4mo ago
      This is only about the Schengen, Switzerland is not a part of the EU, and even before the Schengen, the borders between the EU and Switzerland weren't heavily controlled. I got in trouble at German airport for going by train from Lausanne to Milan, and then plane to Berlin, I had no entry step into the Schengen because they didn't bother doing that on trains (pre-Schengen). Everything else is negotiated under separate treaties. This would revert Switzerland to pre-Schengen, which is sad, but it wouldn't be suicidal.
      • tonfa 4mo ago
        > This is only about the Schengen, Switzerland is not a part of the EU Not really, the bilateral are a package and the EU doesn't want CH to pick and chose. If freedom of movement stops, a whole lot of thing also stop. It happened the last time SVP got something similar voted on (introduction of quota for foreign immigration), on a smaller scale (erasmus and horizon which are the higher ed and academic research collaboration, CH was a heavy recipient of the latter).
        • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
          > the bilateral are a package and the EU doesn't want CH to pick and chose It really depends who is in power where when and if the 10mm limit is crossed. If there is a conservative in Paris or Berlin, chances are Switzerland can simply abrogate Schengen.
          • tonfa 4mo ago
            Unlike UK, the impact to the EU is minimum and Switzerland doesn't have leverage (if the EU still stands). Of course if you have EU dismantlers in power anyway in FR/DE, they'll just be happy to sabotage.
            • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
              > unless you're Swiss, your opinion is irrelevant I think we do bilaterally with our trading partners/border friends. Freedom of movement across the EU has created a massive backlash. Politicians can keep ignoring that. Or they can modify Schengen, perhaps by admitting that FOM makes immigration decisions a collective one. (Germany letting in a massive wave of immigration means a massive wave of immigrants for everyone.)
    • transcriptase 4mo ago
      Makes far more sense than the “population must increase forever” pyramid scheme the rest of the West is running. Check out Canada for a look at what happens when you try to juice GDP via population growth at the expense of literally everything else.
      • ryandrake 4mo ago
        What happens, specifically? Not that I'm a fan of "population increase forever" but what's wrong with Canada?
        • alephnerd 4mo ago
          A lot of people on the internet blame Canada's malaise on their historically lax immigration stance. While to a certain extent it has caused some social issues (eg. Indian, Chinese, Viet organized crime took advantage of it to leave crackdowns during the 2010s and 2020s and degree mills abounded), it's impact on the economy is overstated. Canada's economy was always a resource extraction and construction driven economy, and 1. the blocking of the Keystone Pipeline project (thus making Canadian ONG less competitive than American sourced ONG for refineries) 2. the rise of America as a net energy producer and exporter especially in ONG (thanks Obama/Biden, Trump/Pence/Tillerson, and former Govs Burgum and Perry) 3. the blocking of the GasLink LNG project (blocked the ability for Canada to build marketshare in Asia) 4. the blocking of the Northern Gateway pipeline project (blocked the ability for Canada to build marketshare in Asia) 5. the blocking of the Energie Saguenay LNG project (blocked the ability for Canada to build marketshare in Europe) 6. Bipartisan support in America for trade barriers against Canada even before the Trump tarriffs (eg. Biden and Trump's softwood lumber tariff policy) 7. (becuase this failure is bipartisan) Blue provinces halting renewables projects in Alberta and Saskatchewan while American governors on both sides took full advantage of CHIPS and the IRA, thus preventing Canada from building domestic dealflow in GreenTech all played a much larger role than immigration in causing economic malaise for Canada. At the end of the day, Canada's economy in the 2010s was structurally unprepared for America becoming a major energy producer and exporter by the 2020s, and was unable to successfully build infra to make Canadian ONG cost competitive against American ONG nor the ability to sell outside of North America. THIS is the legacy of the Trudeau administration - if your economy is based on resource extraction, fighting against it for political reasons is self-harming. Canada's GDP has essentially been stagnant for almost 15 years, and all kinds of infrastructure projects that would have helped the Canadian economy grow were blocked. Additionally, Canada has the same economic complexity [0] as Bulgaria [1] and Serbia [2] and is even less complex than Mexico [3], which makes Canada the least competitive choice for FDI within NAFTA. Australia is in the exact same boat as Canada, but unlike Canada, their political class fully backed their resource extraction industries. [0] - https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/countries/124/export-complexity https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/countries/124/export-complexit... [1] - https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/countries/100/export-complexity https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/countries/100/export-complexit... [2] - https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/countries/688/export-complexity https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/countries/688/export-complexit... [3] - https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/countries/484/export-complexity https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/countries/484/export-complexit...
    • dnautics 4mo ago
      how did they ever survive in the pre-EU/schengen/EEC era?
      • ceejayoz 4mo ago
        Divorce is harder than a wedding.
      • skywhopper 4mo ago
        Their neighbors were similarly restrictive back then, and the European economy was not as integrated.
        • joe_mamba 4mo ago
          > the European economy was not as integrated And somehow despite this, the European economies had the biggest share of global GDP back then. And now they're more integrated than ever, have more immigration than ever, have created the EU as their "big daddy" leader and enforcer, and yet they can't stop losing share of GDP to the rest of the world. Stange. Maybe they should hit the brakes for a second and reflect that their current course of action isn't the cure but the disease. Like ASML, Concorde and Airbus were created via European cooperation when EU was a nascent baby and present day Schengen freedom of movement did not exist. Now we EU bureaucracy, open borders unlimited freedom of movement but haven't created the next Airbus or ASML. Food for thought that the EU is tackling the wrong issues on its economic stagnation. Maybe the solution is not more EU, but less EU.
          • jltsiren 4mo ago
            The root issue was already visible in the 1970s. When birth rates drop below replacement, you eventually end up with a society with more old people than kids. And when you have a society like that, you naturally invest more in maintaining the society and less in building the future.
          • j_maffe 4mo ago
            > Maybe the solution is not more EU, but less EU. You haven't given a single reason why that would be beneficial.
• fractallyte 4mo ago
  It's being proposed in order to maintain quality of life. No one wants to be overcrowded. This is a sane solution: collectively agree on the maximum tolerable population. Then it's down to individual responsibility to obey the norms of one's society. Edit: unless you're Swiss, your opinion is irrelevant. Swiss voters have a right to decide how they want to live. They're not beholden to EU laws; they can make their own sovereign decisions, and everyone must respect that.
  • shevy-java 4mo ago
    Except that it is not EU conform. And won't hold up anyway. Everyone knows this. Some politicians want to market themselves here. > Then it's down to individual responsibility to observe the norms of one's society. That's ok, but Switzerland decided to also partake in many EU regulations, including free movement. They can't cherry-pick individual parts. If they don't want special relations to the EU then that's also fine but the benefits will be gone as well. The UK found this out quite quickly too.
  • SllX 4mo ago
    There’s never anything sane with population caps by fiat. If that’s a form of insanity they wish to indulge though, then democracy allows them that.
    • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > There’s never anything sane with population caps by fiat Why? It’s repressive if done to cap a natively-growing population, since that means government controlling reproduction (à la one-child policy). But government has controlled immigration for generations. I’m asking as someone who is genuinely on the fence on this vote.
      • Johanx64 4mo ago
        > Why? It’s repressive if done to cap a natively-growing population, since that means government controlling reproduction (à la one-child policy). There's a point where caping even natively growing population is actually the right move. There's plenty of overpopulated shitholes (Mumbai, Dhaka, Cairo, Bangladesh, etc) where it would have been an absolute blessing if government was controlling reproduction or put a population cap in place. If you think capping population is wrong, go visit Dhaka, I highly recommend it. If you're still on the fence after visiting Dhaka, you're beyond saving.
• shevy-java 4mo ago
  The people behind this are conservative politicians. They have done so a lot in the last 20 years or so and keep on trying, but the EU regularly stops their shenanigans. For the most part the swiss already decided to try to cherry pick as much as possible. They know that if they want to limit movement, then the EU will also limit movement from swiss to other EU countries. And the swiss always disliked that, so they could not go through with it. You can also see that with the UK - they are out of the EU but suddenly want free movement and free trade. Some people can't decide what they want.
• jon_adler 4mo ago
  With a birth rate or 1.29, they will need to accept immigrants or face the consequences of a declining population. My guess is that in the end, the next generation of old folk will want taking care of.
  • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > With a birth rate or 1.29, they will need to accept immigrants or face the consequences of a declining population Doesn’t the population cap somewhat elegantly deal with this? If birth rates are insufficient, a certain amount of migration is tolerated. The lower births rates go, the more immigration is allowed.
    • harshalizee 4mo ago
      It doesn't work as straightforward as that. To have a healthy immigration channel, especially if you want younger/educated/skilled/etc. the pipeline needs to be active and streamlined. Jobs, housing, a well-beaten path that is predictably navigable is incredibly important for a migrant, since they're taking a lot of risks moving there. If this referendum blocks EU movement, it will choke the pipeline that's filling positions that takes in a high amount of immigrants like healthcare, agriculture, etc. Once it dies out, people may not be as willing to move if they're the one paving the path. Historically, the US has been quite successful in this area. Migrants from Philippines dominate nursing, Mexico for agriculture and Chinese/Indians for Sotware/Medical. The migration path has to be vastly superior to their current living for this to work, if they want the same immigration. Or else, it will be mostly people who are truly in a terrible situation who'd be willing to take a chance.
      • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        Counterpoint: Switzerland is rich, peaceful and pretty multicultural. That baseline will keep it as an attractive place to expat or migrate.
        • harshalizee 4mo ago
• plqbfbv 4mo ago
  Moved out last year after 10y in the Zurich area. There's always been a pull-and-push between getting skilled workers and protecting the internal labor market. Right-wing political parties never made a secret of the fact that they hated immigrants, because they stole jobs and redirected/exported money that would have otherwise been received by Swiss. IIRC this was historically mostly felt in Ticino (the southern region), where Swiss companies sourced very cheap Italian labor by undercutting Swiss salaries by a lot, shrinking the job market for Swiss people (a Swiss can barely get by in Switzerland with an equivalent Italian salary). Switzerland is geographically in the middle of Europe, but it's not part of the EU. This allowed the country to thrive outside some of the more restrictive EU regulations and keep its own currency, but because it has a smaller job market that can barely replenish the high-skilled workers pool and is often in defect (not just finance bros, but also doctors, for instance), it always had to import workforce from neighboring countries to some extent. Over the last 40 years Switzerland basically opened up to more-or-less follow many EU rules and put in place agreements to have a play in the same market and be allowed to easily keep importing people it needs. This initiative as I understand it would be equivalent to a Brexit (because sooner or later the cap would be hit, considering more housing keeps being built), which would undo 40 years of openings and IMO greatly weaken the integration with EU, and as a result the country as a whole.
• thrance 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• atemerev 4mo ago
  This is a way to enable deportations and curb permit prolongations, to delay reaching the 10m cap (which will create really bad consequences). As an immigrant in Switzerland, I am quite WORRIED.
  • unbrice 4mo ago
    > As an immigrant in Switzerland, I am quite WORRIED. If it helps : Assuming that the initiative pass and nothing is done to reduce the immigration rate, the 10M threshold would be reached by 2040 according to the Federal Statistics Office. The current regime should apply to you till 2042 which should give you 16 years to make your way to citizenship (Among many other path that would let you stay).
    • atemerev 4mo ago
      The threshold is actually 9.5M, and we are at 9.1M already.