No counter-proposal The Council of States also rejects the SVP's immigration initiative
After the National Council, the Council of States has also rejected the SVP's immigration initiative.
15.12.2025, 20:40
SDA
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- Like the National Council before it, the Council of States has recommended a No to the SVP's popular initiative "No 10 million Swiss!".
- A Yes to the initiative would seriously jeopardize Switzerland's prosperity and its obligations under international law, according to the tenor.
- Federal Councillor Beat Jans said that the initiative would not solve a single problem, but only create new ones.
- Formally, this decision still has to be put to the final vote in Parliament at the end of the winter session.
The Federal Councillors recommend that the electorate vote no to the SVP's popular initiative "No 10 million Swiss!". Like the National Council, the Council of States also rejects the popular initiative, which aims to restrict immigration.
A Yes to the initiative would seriously jeopardize Switzerland's prosperity and its obligations under international law. This was the tenor of the majority in the Council of States debate on Monday.
The opponents argued that accepting the initiative would ultimately mean that the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons with the European Union would have to be terminated. This would be the case if Switzerland's population grew to more than ten million people before 2050. The bilateral approach is important for Switzerland's prosperity. It should not be jeopardized.
Tiana Angelina Moser (GLP/ZH), for example, said that 45% of doctors working in Swiss hospitals had a foreign diploma. Switzerland could not do without these people.
Only the SVP Council members and Mauro Poggia (MCG/GE) spoke in favor of the initiative. Esther Friedli (SG) said that the problem of "excessive immigration" must finally be tackled at its roots. New instruments and renegotiations of existing agreements are needed. The initiative was a "sensible option for controlling and limiting immigration ourselves again".
The Council of States voted by 29 votes to 9 with 6 abstentions in favor of the motion of the preliminary committee to recommend that the electorate reject the initiative. Formally, this decision still has to be put to the final vote in Parliament at the end of the winter session.
Jans: Keeping the lid on is useless
With its "sustainability initiative", the SVP wants to ensure that the permanent Swiss resident population does not rise above the ten million mark from 2050, or at most only because of the birth surplus.
If the population exceeds the nine and a half million mark before 2050, the Federal Council and parliament will take measures to ensure that the limit is met, "particularly in the area of asylum and family reunification".
According to the text of the initiative, Switzerland would have to renegotiate "international agreements that drive population growth" with regard to exemption or protection clauses. If none of this is enough to meet the 10 million threshold, the agreement on the free movement of persons with the EU would ultimately have to be terminated as an emergency measure.
Federal Councillor Beat Jans said that the initiative would not solve a single problem, but only create new ones. If someone has a problem, you can't just keep the lid on it, you have to solve the problem. Every day, experts in Switzerland work on solving problems in areas such as spatial planning, transport and real estate.
With the specific safeguard clause in the new bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the EU, the Swiss Confederation even has a kind of emergency brake on immigration - without this jeopardizing the bilateral approach.
The Federal Council proposed recommending that the electorate vote no to the initiative - at the beginning of the year it decided, like the two councils, not to oppose the request with a counter-proposal.
No chance for counter-proposals
The question of whether the Council of States should put the initiative to the vote with a counter-proposal was almost as much of a talking point on Monday as the initiative itself. Three variants for such a counter-proposal were submitted to the Council of States.
They came from centrist and FDP Council members and revolved around an immigration restriction in the sense of a constitutional protection clause, an immigration levy and the possibility of a separate vote on the termination of the free movement of persons.
By 29 votes to 15, the Council of States followed the motion of the preliminary committee not to act on them.
The authors of these motions said that the SVP initiative had a chance of being adopted at the ballot box. Surveys showed this. It was a risk to submit the immigration initiative to the people without a counter-proposal.
Opponents countered that it would be better to fight the initiative clearly and unambiguously before the people. Pierre-Yves Maillard (SP/VD), for example, said that there was no point in fighting the SVP proposal with a counter-proposal that was said to be based on justified concerns of the initiative.
Back in September, the National Council rejected a counter-proposal from centrist circles when discussing the popular initiative.