Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
EU Earth

Most Swiss Back Initiative To Cap Population At 10 Million (reuters.com) 170

Posted by BeauHD from the growing-support dept.
A new poll shows a slim majority of Swiss voters now support a June 14 referendum to cap the country's population at 10 million by 2050. Under the proposal backed by the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP), "the permanent resident population must not exceed 10 million before 2050, and Switzerland should abandon its freedom of movement agreement with the EU," reports Reuters. From the report: Switzerland's population is now more than 9 million, with official data showing foreign nationals accounted for more than 27% by 2024. The survey, conducted on April 22 and 23 and published in newspaper Tages-Anzeiger, showed 52% of 16,176 respondents in favor of the proposal or leaning that way, while 46% took the opposite view. The rest gave no opinion. A previous poll from early March had shown 45% backing the initiative and 47% against it, the newspaper said, flagging the latest result as unusual in that Swiss referendum proposals generally lose support as the voting day comes closer. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Most Swiss Back Initiative To Cap Population At 10 Million More | Reply

Most Swiss Back Initiative To Cap Population At 10 Million

Comments Filter:

  • Not sure what to think about this (Score:3, Informative)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Thursday April 30, 2026 @12:14PM (#66120426)
    Switzerland is already a fairly dense country. They're small, landlocked, resource limited and they've got around 225 people per square km. Which is getting up there. How much more crowded should they allow themselves to get? It's a legit question that shouldn't get clouded by the standard nativist right wing talking points. Maybe "as many people as the world can cram in" isn't the right answer.

    It's totally different in a place like the US. We have more land than we could reasonably populate and plenty of natural resources. We could absorb enormous numbers of people and we would be better off for it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ozzymodus12 ( 8111534 )
      It's not a bad idea to have population caps. In a world with limited resources, this isn't a bad idea for long term plans for most nations. As a guy that still plays Alpha Centauri, I really don't want to get nerve stapled IRL.

      • Yes it is. There are copious amounts of dystopian sci-fi talking about why governments shouldn't control breeding.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by nyet ( 19118 )

          Uh. Scifi isn't science. There are many many many good non-fiction reasons population caps are a problem, though most have to do with economics.

          And controlling breeding is not the same as limiting immigration.

        • Re: Not sure what to think about this (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday April 30, 2026 @02:00PM (#66120652) Homepage

          27% of their population are non-swiss members of the EU that decide to live in Switzerland.

          They are not trying to control breeding, they are attempting to stop immigration from the EU.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by ClickOnThis ( 137803 )

            27% of their population are non-swiss members of the EU that decide to live in Switzerland.

            They are not trying to control breeding, they are attempting to stop immigration from the EU.

            If that's true, then the Swiss should reconsider. There is nothing inherently wrong with the country having robust immigration, even if it does result in a large population of people who weren't born there. They are no doubt, and should continue to be, encouraged to embrace and contribute to what it means to be Swiss. And that doesn't mean agreeing with the status quo. Switzerland is a democratic country, whose future is determined collectively by its citizens. Many immigrants will choose to become Swiss ci

        • Ok, so your point is absolutely valid and I failed to make the distinction. I was talking about immigration control, not reproduction control.

          If a country is actually getting full, limiting immigration is a valid thing to debate. (however, most countries aren't full)

          Reproduction control is monstrous. No need to point to sci-fi. Various real governments have tried to control reproduction. Every one of those stories ended with the line "... and it went horribly wrong and unspeakable things were done to

        • Re: Not sure what to think about this (Score:5, Informative)

          by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Thursday April 30, 2026 @05:18PM (#66121092) Homepage

          Yes it is. There are copious amounts of dystopian sci-fi talking about why governments shouldn't control breeding.

          The average number of children per woman in Switzerland is 1.29, about half of the population replacement rate. Stopping population growth in Switzerland has nothing to do with controlling breeding.

          https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/v... [swissinfo.ch]

      • I would call this an immigration cap, not a population cap. Let's say internal growth somehow resumed and they got on track to break 10M even after ceasing immigration. If it's a population cap, they'd have to make their own citizens not have kids, which is an ugly prospect. Granted the distinction doesn't matter unless their internal reproduction zooms back up which isn't happening anytime soon.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MIPSPro ( 10156657 )
          That's the right of the local population, no? They can opt to control immigration. It's perfectly legitimate for any number of reasons. They might want to preserve their culture and force immigrants to assimilate. That's perfectly okay. They might want to keep health standards high, check for criminal backgrounds, do psych evals, etc... That's also their right. They might even want to preserve their racial makeup and overall "look". That's also okay if that's what they want.

          One of many reason

          • This would maybe make sense if there was total consensus among the Swiss population but like in any democracy, there isn't.

          • Re:Not sure what to think about this (Score:5, Insightful)

            by lordmatthias215 ( 919632 ) on Thursday April 30, 2026 @02:02PM (#66120660)
            "If blocking a bunch of illiterates from coming in..." juxtaposes so nicely with "...acting like everything is being done from a purely racist perspective is ridiculous". All in service of a vacuous argument no one actually contested.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by ClickOnThis ( 137803 )

              This. MIPSPro labels himself when he refers to immigrants as "a bunch of illiterates." Also with his defense of a supposed desire by the Swiss to "preserve their racial makeup and overall "look"".

              Asserting that "it's their fucking country" to justify racism is a bad look. For MIPSPro. But perhaps on-brand?

          • If blocking a bunch of illiterates from coming in helps create a better environment

            It doesn't. Birth rates continue low regardless. The culture changed into one that favor having few children, and barring everyone converting to a religion that has as a core commandment families having tons of children, that won't change.

            Also, I looked into the projection for the Swiss population in 2050, and it's predicted to be less than 10 million people already, and past 2050 the population is predicted to start declining. In other words, this referendum makes no difference, and the party that proposed

            • Projections underestimating immigration and asylum inflows to rich countries? Say it ain't so.

              • Immigration has precisely the purpose to keep the population growing and the economy with it. Without it, the economy stagnates and begins to shrink. Countries have to pick one of these options:

                * Economic growth through higher birth rates.
                * Economic growth through higher immigration.
                * Economic shrinkage.

                There's no known fourth option. There are some hypothetical alternatives based on wishful thinking. If a country tries one of these and it fails, it'll experience economic contraction exactly as if it had ac

        • "they'd have to make their own citizens not have kids, which is an ugly prospect."

          They already almost have no kids, they get older and older and I guess they hope robots will help them in their old age, but not 'furinners'.

    • They could control it through economics by simply not permitting home construction. Without new home construction, any increase in population will lead to increased costs for immigrants who want to come in and can't find available housing stock.

      • Or by favoring for immigration those who cannot reproduce due to age or sterilization. This would be just another factor for consideration in addition to existing factors such as skills, education, and so on.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Tried that in the UK. All that happens is all the houses become unaffordable to anyone except landlords.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Train0987 ( 1059246 )

        Immigrants will tolerate a much lower standard of living than the natives (cramming many more people into a single unit) thus reducing the quality of life for everyone while continuing to drive up housing costs.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dskoll ( 99328 )

        It increases costs for everyone, not just for immigrants. Canada is in the midst of a housing crisis for exactly this reason... we haven't built enough homes to keep up with population growth.

    • There is a massive automation push going on right now not just AI everything. The Epstein class has had enough of this whole paying wages stuff.

      I don't think swedish has a word for this and I know America doesn't but we could use a word for the concept of having a comfortable place in society.

      In America there is one good job for every five people. A good job here is something that pays enough that you can reliably afford housing, food, medicine, transportation and to raise a small family. I think th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PCM2 ( 4486 )

        We're talking about Switzerland. Not Sweden.

        • Yeah I miss typed well misspoke because I used text to speech but whatever.

          The point still stands.

          In order to prevent a fascist take over riding on the top of anti-immigrant sentiment we're going to have to figure out a way to decouple basic ability to live from employment.

          You cannot have somebody's entire quality of life completely in 110% dependent on employment when we are constantly automating jobs at a super rapid pace. I mean you can but you're going to get fascism when those people inevit

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

      It's totally different in a place like the US. We have more land than we could reasonably populate and plenty of natural resources. We could absorb enormous numbers of people and we would be better off for it.

      No....we have room for people that WANT to assimilate into the US, learn the common language, and believe in what the US stands for....not to come in and tear it down and form into something else.

      Wanting to come here and start sharia law....that's a hard NO.

      We do not want people coming here that on

      • For perspective, when puritan Europeans came to what is now called the US, they did essentially the bad things you are describing. Your existence in the US is only possible because all these things you say shouldn't happen now did happen then. I agree that Sharia law is a terrible idea anywhere btw. For the US, I'm more worried about the Christian nutcases though. Because they are already doing another iteration of what you are describing, just not in the flavour you are focused on.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      This could be their Brexit moment. Ruin the trading relationship with the EU, permanently damage the economy.

      Do they have a plan for dealing with the pension/healthcare problems that capping the population will bring? Without a continual supply of young workers to pay for it all, how will those things be provided for the elderly? In the UK they just keep putting more and more tax on working people to pay for it.

    • What happens if the cap is exceeded? Forced abortions, sterilization, and euthanizing the surplus?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

        What happens if the cap is exceeded? Forced abortions, sterilization, and euthanizing the surplus?

        Presumably they simply disallow more immigration until they fall back below the cap. But, sure, let's go with the horrifically dystopian option that we have no evidence to support.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bsolar ( 1176767 )

        What happens if the cap is exceeded? Forced abortions, sterilization, and euthanizing the surplus?

        From the text of the initiative [admin.ch], basically the government would be required to implement restrictive measures once 9.5M are reached. If 10M are exceeded, the government would be required to terminate international treaties that drive immigration.

        This is effectively a constitutional amendment, so many details are not defined at this level. If successfull, the details would need to be elaborated by the government, e.g. by the Parliament enacting new legislation to satisfy the new constitutional requirements.

    • Switzerland is [...] small, landlocked, resource limited [...]

      ...and not in a good position to pull out of their treaties with the neighbors surrounding them on all sides. I know this is specifically about the Schengen free-movement treaty, but it would be stupid of the EU to agree to let them pull out of select portions of their treaties while maintaining the free-trade portion of the agreements. You don't just get to unilaterally cancel the part of the agreement that benefits your neighbors, and keep the part that benefits you. They should expect to pay a heavy pr

      • The treaties between Switzerland and the EU are all interlinked, so if Switzerland decides to exit one treaty, this will make all the other ones void as well. But I think this is exactly what SVP wants - they wish Switzerland was an island far away from any other coast.

    • "It's totally different in a place like the US. We have more land than we could reasonably populate and plenty of natural resources. We could absorb enormous numbers of people and we would be better off for it."

      We're running out of water. No where in the West (except maybe PNW) has enough water for the people they have already. Any growth will just exacerbate that. Lotsa land. No water.

    • "We have more land than we could reasonably populate and plenty of natural resources. We could absorb enormous numbers of people and we would be better off for it."

      Plenty of open land, perhaps. Plenty of water, no.

      https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu... [unl.edu]

      Even the open land is questionable unless you want to build a new city in, for example, Dixie Valley Nevada. Or maybe southern Owyhee county Idaho. But you still have the water problem.

    • When you're talking about population control you're also talking about demographics, The Swiss will end up like many existing countries with an aging population, such as Japan, China, Russia etc. and a limited number of young people having to support an aging, largely non-productive retired group, placing high demands on increasingly expensive medical resources. I see that Russia's birthrate per couple is down to 1.37 when the replacement rate is 2.1. For a healthy population they may have to start euthani

    • Why is it not the right answer?

      Sure there are nations with far more land to absorb them too, but once asylum seekers are across the borders with torn up/buried passports that is not practically relevant. They are where they want to be and within the human rights framework you can't get rid of them.

      As an anti-human-rights nativist getting rid of them regardless is not a problem for me, put them in camps until they are willing to go to some third world nation willing to take them for a bit of cash, but what's

  • For context (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rskbrkr ( 824653 ) on Thursday April 30, 2026 @12:19PM (#66120442)
    The Swiss birth rate is down to 1.29 children per woman. Recent population growth is due solely to immigration.

    • Which means the Swiss run the risk of losing their national identity over the coming decades. With fewer and fewer native Swiss births, the increase will be from people that look different, speak different and have a different culture. I'm not Swiss, so my opinion on this doesn't really matter but if Swiss-ness matters to the natives, they should support this.

      • This won't solve the problem you're talking about. You clearly indicated why in your comment; with a birth rate that low, a cap will still be replacing the local ethnicity with immigrants.

        Replacement is 2.1. At current rates, even with a cap at current population, the next generation is going to be 40% less Swiss.

        In any case, there's no indication the Swiss are looking at this from a German-style Blut und Boden perspective. So what you characterize as a problem, may well not even be seen as one in Switzerla

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by PCM2 ( 4486 )

        Which means the Swiss run the risk of losing their national identity over the coming decades. With fewer and fewer native Swiss births, the increase will be from people that look different, speak different and have a different culture. I'm not Swiss, so my opinion on this doesn't really matter but if Swiss-ness matters to the natives, they should support this.

        Pray tell, what do Swiss people look like? What does "Swiss culture" look like? What language do they speak? What are their traditions? Do enlighten us.

        • You should visit Helvetia.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        • Did I not just say I'm not Swiss? How would I know about their country unless I actively went to study about it. I'm quite certain they have character traits that help build up a national identify of Swiss-ness but it would be inappropriate for me to project what I think *might* be correct. Swiss are not German are not French are not Dutch.

          Otherwise, may as well just dissolve all those countries and just call the whole affair Europe. I'm sure there are people that support such an idea. They probably aren't

          • Re:For context (Score:5, Insightful)

            by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Thursday April 30, 2026 @05:40PM (#66121122) Homepage

            Swiss are not German are not French are not Dutch.

            Correct. They are also not Italian and not Romani. But they do speak Swiss German, Swiss Italian, Swiss French, and Romansh. What they are not (apparently unlike you) are racist-nationalist ideologues. Their Confederation has a longstanding tradition of diversity, multilingualism, and multiculturalism. In that, they are very unlike you, who seem to want to tell them to run their country like a racist ethno-state.

            How would I know about their country unless I actively went to study about it.

            You also don't seem to want to fucking educate yourself before you tell others how to live their lives.

      • People who talk like this seem to think that national "identity" is a fixed thing. But no nation has a ever had static population with fixed traditions that never evolved upon contact with different cultures. Allowing immigrants in does not mean losing Swiss-ness, but it may mean a change to what Swiss-ness means. However, that has always been changing in ways big and small over decades and centuries. I would expect that anybody from any nation would experience serious culture shock if they went back in tim

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Sloppy ( 14984 )

        Which means the Swiss run the risk of losing their national identity over the coming decades.

        Surely that would be lost in the noise. Don't most cultures lose their identities about every 20-30 years anyway? I'm not quite the same person I was 25 years ago, and I bet you aren't either. Yet we are the medium through which culture waves.

        Take a longer view and think of 1926. WTF do you today, have in common with them? Some things, but not others. Reading about their lives is much like meeting someone from the o

        • The main things I would have in common with an American citizen born here with parents born here is shared history of our country. We both learned the same stories about our foundering fathers. We're likely to hold the Constitution is fairly high regard. The Bill of Rights, it's a big value system that we share. We don't go bowing to kings and we likely share the independent attitude of handling shit yourself instead of relying on the government to do everything for you. We're not subjects, we're citizens.

          S

      • What on earth is "Swiss-ness"? The country has a French part, and Italian part, and a German part. There is no real national identity to speak of with each region largely adopting culture they inherited from the neighbours.

        • What on earth is "Swiss-ness"?

          Chocolate making, cheese making, watch making, banking, staying out of wars, and blowing those huge horns to sell cough drops.

      • Which means the Swiss run the risk of losing their national identity over the coming decades. With fewer and fewer native Swiss births, the increase will be from people that look different, speak different and have a different culture.

        The Great Replacement Theory

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spitzak ( 4019 )

        Switzerland is already 1/3 French, 1/3 German, and 1/3 Italian

    • Recent population growth is due solely to immigration.

      I've not seen the figures for Switzerland so it could be an exception to the rule but for almost every western european country, a significant proportion (in the UK it's about 50%) of population growth over the last 3 decades or so is down to increased life expectancy.

      Again, for the UK that effect appears to be flattening out, excluding the pandemic, the recent years in the 2020s are the first years since the 1970s that deaths have exceeded births. When

      • I very recently saw a report that 2026 is expected to be the year when deaths are expected to exceeding births every year for the foreseeable future. The population has finally stopped growing because of increases in life expectancy.

        Japan has sold more adult diapers than infant diapers for over a decade now. That doesn't exactly create a prosperous future for an aging population. Especially in societies that rely on a younger working generation to sustain social welfare retirement programs. The younger replacement generation is also necessary for survival because at some point the elderly physically cannot work anymore. We're still in a dangerous time where we do not have autonomous solutions for every human task the elderly requir

        • To be fair toward gen alpha, they are very young and empathy is not something you are just magically born with. You have to learn empathy and many of them will. Give them time.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's already causing huge problems in the UK. The tax burden to fund pensions and healthcare for the elderly is crushing working age people. Meanwhile the cost of living, especially housing, is also squeezing them. It's totally unsustainable.

        We have to choose. Immigration, reduced pensions/healthcare/life expectancy, or forced births. It's too late to do anything else like set up a sovereign wealth fund, and besides we gave away all the oil already.

  • Since WWII, Switzerland has transformed itself into one of the world's leading hubs for global companies and organizations. From the world's largest banks to the UN and FIFA, the country is home to countless entities employing hundreds of thousands of foreigners.

    None of this was by chance, but by design. This strategy helped consolidate the country as one of the richest in the world, which in turn attracts more people seeking a better life.

    Currently, about half of the immigrants living in Switzerland come f

  • good work (Score:3, Insightful)

    by noshellswill ( 598066 ) on Thursday April 30, 2026 @12:58PM (#66120518) Homepage
    Limit national population? Good for the Swiss. World population is about 6x as large as a  risk adverse, self-sustaining  world culture can, should  ( and will-not ) maintain. Population competition for strictly limited resources has been historically the main cause of inter-tribal / inter-state / inter-national conflict. Examples are numerous and evident ,  from steppe horse invaders to the 3rd Reich.  Unless a population is willing to install violent,  tyrannous leadership better make sure that population is small enough so the neighbors toilet-flush cannot be heard. Good fences make good neighbors only if the fences are football-fields apart and preferably a fresh-water stream runs between them.
    • R.C., that you? Although I believe R.C.'s commandment was to limit world population at 500M.
      • Nope, not RC. I believe the limiting number of people ( and allowed variation over time ) ought to worked out by content experts in appropriate fields ... constrained by a well-prepared and educated population. Enforcing "arbitrary" limits just begs for a violent response. Take an entire generation to recognize the serious issue and reach a consensus. Then technical experts can address specific issues to ensure long-time genetic variability as well as shorter-term physica

    • The world can "maintain" 2x the current amount at the very least.

  • Great idea in theory (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Thursday April 30, 2026 @01:58PM (#66120648)

    Endless growth is impossible
    We need steady-state sustainability
    It will be interesting to see how this works out

    • I'm waiting for the plan's to implement Shirley Jackson's The Lottery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
      • What's your issue ? A boat at sail that can carry five (5) people without sinking will find its occupants "removing"  a hypothetical 6-th person.  Or do you prefer 6 deaths ?  Wine dark seas have their own rules. I retain great confidence in that choice, because no boat has returned from sail promoting the contrary. 

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      How screwed are they with their population ageing? That's usually the main problem. Too many people retired and in need of healthcare, too few younger people working to pay taxes to fund it.

  • were OK with just building more pig farms.

  • Most people wouldn't argue that Switzerland is a real country, recently with about 7 million people. Especially before the EU influence and the ending of financial privacy there.

    Yet most or those same people would argue that half of US States couldn't each be an independent country because there aren't enough people.

    Being neutral would benefit many of them in the ongoing hostilities.

    • Any US state could be a separate country. Most just would be shit holes without a few states subsidizing their existence; likely end up invaded by somebody else since they couldn't fund much self defense.

  • Redefining "most". (Score:3)

    by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Thursday April 30, 2026 @04:12PM (#66120952)

    Slim majority doesn't mean most. Slightly over half, maybe. But not most.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. But the Tagesanzeiger is not a quality press publication. This misleading statement was probably copied from them.

  • Actually a complaint about the lack of Funny though the target has limited potential. Still I think it's kind of funny that no comments related to freedom of movement have entered the discussion. And there I was thinking it was basically a good thing.

  • The last time I checked, "slim majority" means around 50%, while "most" would reasonably be expected to be something like > 90%.

    Also note that "Tagesanzeiger" is basically yellow press and that the SVP is mostly loud but incompetent. In actual reality, Switzerland does not educated enough MDs, scientists, engineers, teachers, etc. to fulfill its own needs, so even if they make this a reality (which is doubtful), they will have to have a lot of exceptions.

    • If they stop irregular immigration, they can allow all the medically trained etc immigrants they need and stay under 10 Million comfortably.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        You misunderstand the problem. "Irregular" immigration is not the issue. There is almost none of that in Switzerland and the numbers are sinking: https://www.bazg.admin.ch/de/z... [admin.ch]

        Completely "regular" immigration is the issue under discussion. From places like Germany, Austria, France, Italy, etc. And all of that are people that the Swiss actually need.

  • The livable area of Switzerland is more or less finite. Yes, they could fill in more lake and river areas, and flatten some mountainous areas, but canâ(TM)t really add more land. There is some sense to limiting how many extra people you add from the outside. This isnâ(TM)t leading to a one child policy, but saying that the external influx will have a limit, based on how many people are currently within their borders.
    Compare this to other countries that ban people explicitly because of where they

Slashdot Top Deals

"The Computer made me do it."

Close