Found an error?
Report now
Following the rejection of the sustainability initiative, the SVP leadership has already announced its next offensive.
Image: Keystone
A Switzerland of 10 million is not coming. But the SVP is convinced that the debate on immigration has only just begun. Following Sunday’s vote, the party leadership announced it would focus its efforts on the fight against the Bilateral Agreements III.
The symbolism could hardly have been greater. Of all places, the SVP watched the results of the vote on its sustainability initiative on Sunday at the “Krone” restaurant in Aarberg, Bern. This is where the party celebrated one of its biggest victories in 2014: the narrow “yes” vote on the mass immigration initiative.
Twelve years later, the mood is different. The Swiss electorate rejected the sustainability initiative—the so-called “10-Million-Switzerland” initiative— with around 55 percent voting “no.” The proposal, with which the SVP sought to limit the population to ten million people in the long term and ultimately call into question the free movement of persons with the EU, fails decisively. The “crown” remains uncrowned this time.
But anyone looking for signs of resignation on Sunday will find none in Aarberg. No sooner are the first projections known than party leaders are already looking ahead. blue News spoke with leading SVP politicians after the referendum results were announced.
This is how Thomas Matter, one of the initiative’s intellectual architects, attempts to reframe the defeat. “45 percent in favor: that means nearly half the population supported us,” says the Zurich National Council member. The referendum result is not the end of the debate, but an interim result: “If politicians don’t take this seriously now, it won’t be another two or three years before we reach over 50 percent.”
When asked whether it would have been more honest to make the free movement of persons the direct subject of the proposal, rather than focusing on issues like the housing shortage or infrastructure problems, Matter points to the experience with the 2020 immigration cap initiative: “Back then, we were told not to directly attack the free movement of persons. That’s exactly what we’ve done differently this time,” he says. “But no matter what we do: If it comes from us, people always say it’s the wrong solution.”
The sustainability initiative marks the SVP’s third major attempt to politically limit the free movement of persons with the EU.
In 2014, the party won with the Mass Immigration Initiative. Parliament later implemented it only in a watered-down form. In 2020, the Limitation Initiative, which sought to directly terminate the free movement of persons, failed. The Sustainability Initiative was now intended to provide a new approach: Officially, the focus was not on the free movement of persons, but on limiting population growth.
The plan did not work out.
Yet the starting point was quite promising from the SVP’s perspective. Polls showed over several months that a large portion of the population shares the party’s diagnosis: housing shortages, overburdened infrastructure, crowded trains, and rising pressure on the housing market are concerns for many people.
This is precisely where the paradox of this vote lies. The problem was recognized by a majority, but the proposed solution was not. Many voters did not want to jeopardize relations with the EU and continued to view the free movement of people as a key pillar for the economy, research, and the labor market. That likely tipped the scales in the end.
It is striking that none of the SVP representatives interviewed by blue News are willing to acknowledge fundamental flaws in their own strategy. Mike Egger, also one of the initiative’s authors, speaks of a missed opportunity for the country—not for his party.
“We aren’t feeling much disappointment today; rather, the problems in this country continue,” says Egger. “The ‘no’ vote hasn’t solved a single problem.”
He now places the responsibility on the “no” camp: “Opponents now have a duty to come up with solutions—in the areas of infrastructure, resource consumption, and security.”
Egger also expressly defends the campaign: “Our referendum campaign was very well thought out, with plenty of figures, data, and facts. The opponents, above all, played on people’s fears.”
Party President Marcel Dettling makes a similar argument: “Not a single problem is solved by the ‘no’ vote,” he said. The questions raised by the initiative will continue to “occupy Switzerland heavily in the coming months and years.”
At the same time, Dettling announced that the party has no intention of backing down from its core concerns: “We will certainly not give up. This is such an important issue,” he says. “The SVP will not bury its head in the sand. We will continue to advocate for limiting immigration.”
For the SVP, the sustainability initiative is now a thing of the past. The focus is now on the next major political battleground—the Switzerland-EU package, better known as Bilateral Agreements III.
The Federal Council submitted the agreement package to Parliament in March 2026. The goal is to stabilize and further develop the bilateral relationship with the EU in the long term. The package includes, among other things, adjustments to the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons, participation in European research programs, and new agreements in the areas of electricity, health, and food safety. The federal government describes the proposal as central to Switzerland’s prosperity, innovation, and security of supply.
For the SVP, however, the package embodies exactly the opposite.
Faction President Thomas Aeschi makes it unmistakably clear to blue News where the party will focus its efforts in the future: “The SVP will certainly wage its main battle there over the next two years.” The goal is to ensure that this “EU submission treaty” fails at the ballot box.
“The Switzerland-EU package would make immigration to Switzerland even easier,” says Aeschi. Or, to put it more concretely: “Even more people could come to Switzerland.”
Already on the day of the vote, Aeschi is setting a new course: While the sustainability initiative may have been lost, the fight against further steps toward opening up to the EU is only just beginning.
From a political perspective, the defeat could even have advantages for the SVP. Had the initiative been accepted, the party would suddenly have had to deliver concrete solutions. Instead, its most important mobilizing issue remains: immigration.
The sustainability initiative has failed. However, the political conflict it has brought to light is likely to keep Switzerland occupied for a long time to come. At the latest when Parliament decides on the Bilateral Agreements III and a possible referendum draws nearer, the SVP will once again try to turn the immigration issue into a national decision on the direction of the country.
Or, in the words of Marcel Dettling: “We will keep fighting.”
