Switzerland’s 10 Million Cap: A Referendum on Self-Harm

Immigration sometimes needs brakes, but the proposal would be like driving into a wall

The citizens of Switzerland, a nation of just over 9 million people, should bear these cautionary tales in mind on June 14th. They are set to vote in a referendum, championed by the country’s dominant populist-right SVP party, on whether it should be illegal for Switzerland to exceed 10 million inhabitants. No other country has ever attempted such a cap. If opinion polls are any guide, a significant number of voters are tempted: the outcome is too close to call. There is only one problem: it is a terrible idea.

A hard cap for an ageing, shrinking country

Switzerland, like most of Europe, is ageing. Its fertility rate of 1.3 babies per woman over a lifetime is ultra-low. Without immigration, the population would naturally shrink rapidly. So this referendum is fundamentally about migration policy.

Around 30% of the population is foreign-born, a share notably higher than in most countries. Many Swiss resent the presence of so many foreigners, largely Germans and Italians. They complain about high property prices, damage to the Alpine environment, changes to Swiss culture, the spread of English, and long queues for swimming baths — all of which the SVP blames on immigration.

The cap would hit talent, not asylum

If enacted, the new law would oblige the Swiss government to impose tight restrictions on immigration as the population crept toward the 10 million mark. In the popular imagination, this would mean limiting asylum-seekers. In reality, Switzerland admits very few.

A hard cap would actually mean choking off the flow of foreign talent that invigorates the Swiss economy. From hospitals and drug firms to banks and insurers, the country’s ability to attract clever people makes it more productive and innovative. It consistently ranks near the top of talent-magnet indices.

A Brexit-style break with Europe — at huge cost

A population cap would also disrupt Switzerland’s relationship with Europe. The country is a member of the Schengen area, a European free-movement zone home to 450 million people. More importantly, its bilateral treaties with the EU include acceptance of the right of EU citizens to reside there, just as Swiss citizens can move anywhere in the EU.

For Switzerland to renege on this agreement would mean renegotiating its relationship with the entire wealthy continent in which it nestles. It would also deprive Swiss citizens of the freedom they currently enjoy to go and live in any one of 28 other European countries. It would be akin to a Brexit moment.

On current trends, the 10 million mark will be reached in 2041, according to Demografik, a think-tank in Basel. Blocking immigration to prevent that would require excluding a large number of highly skilled professionals, since they are the foreign workers Switzerland currently most recruits. Combine that with the wider effects of breaking up with the EU — a “guillotine clause” in the country’s agreement with the bloc makes it inevitable that ties are broadly severed — and the best guess is that the Swiss would inflict on themselves an economic loss of SFr500bn ($628bn) over 20 years. That’s big enough to cause pain in an economy of just $1.15trn.

The environmental alibi does not hold

The SVP has wooed even centrist Swiss voters by couching the referendum as partly an environmental measure. Immigrants occupy space, exhale carbon dioxide, and occasionally drop litter. But the big threat to Switzerland’s mountaintop meadows and glaciers comes from climate change, something local population curbs will do nothing to solve.

There are less crude ways to manage migration

It is reasonable for Swiss voters to wish to control the pace at which their society changes. But there are less crude ways of doing so. Switzerland could, without breaking EU agreements, regulate the inflow of migrants and favour the more skilled by requiring a higher minimum salary as a condition of admission.

Easing restrictions on homebuilding would alleviate high house prices; barring the entry of foreign builders would not. Switzerland is rich partly because it is a hub for international business. It will struggle to remain so if it is closed to foreign brains. Voters should vote “no”.

Figures on population, fertility and economic cost as stated in the source report; 2041 projection attributed to Demografik (Basel).

Report a correction