According to SRG projections, 55 percent voted “No” on the SVP initiative

Political scientist Lukas Golder of gfs.bern attributed the projected “no” vote to the opposition in French-speaking Switzerland and in the cities. These votes countered the impression in rural areas that “something needed to be done” about immigration, Golder said.

On Swiss Radio, political scientist Urs Bieri said the initiative had followed the normal course. “We had high support at the beginning, then the initiative’s weaknesses were discussed. That ultimately led to the ‘no’ vote.” A high voter turnout was expected.

The latest polls before the vote had already pointed to a “no” result. At the start of the campaign, however, the “yes” camp had been larger than the “no” camp. That likely fueled the campaign significantly.

Another unsuccessful attempt

The “No to a 10-Million Switzerland” initiative is thus another unsuccessful attempt to limit immigration to Switzerland. According to the initiative, the permanent resident population would not have been allowed to exceed ten million before 2050. As soon as 9.5 million people had been living in the country before 2050, the Federal Council and Parliament would have had to take measures.

If the 10-million threshold had been exceeded before 2050, the Federal Council would have had to do everything in its power to bring the population back below that limit. It would have had to terminate international agreements that lead to population growth as quickly as possible, most recently the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons with the EU.

The SVP stood alone against the other major parties, the Federal Council, the cantons and cities, as well as the social partners. While some of its arguments did find support in other political camps, this could explain the high expected “yes” vote for the initiative.

The campaign by both sides was intense and at times played with no holds barred. Problems such as the housing shortage, high rents, traffic jams, overcrowded trains and buses, crime, the increasing development of farmland, stagnating wages, and declining standards in schools require a solution, the SVP argued.

Warning of chaos

The opposing alliance of center-right politicians warned of chaos following a “yes” vote on the initiative. Without targeted immigration, they argued, there is a risk of a collapse in essential services, such as in nursing and skilled trades. Construction, tourism, and agriculture, they added, also depend on a skilled workforce.

The left-wing counter-committee pointed out that restricting immigration could lead to a rollback of workers’ rights, lower wages, and an exacerbation of the labor shortage. The “No” campaign also argued that a “Yes” vote on the initiative could mean a break with the EU.