Swiss voters have rejected a proposal to cap the country’s population at 10 million, dealing a setback to the anti-immigration campaign of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party.
Official results showed nearly 55% voted against the proposal, while 45% backed it. Voter turnout reached 60%.
The referendum had raised concerns about Switzerland’s future relationship with the European Union because approval of the measure would have required the country to end its free movement agreement with the bloc.
Welcoming the result, Switzerland’s Justice Minister, Beat Jans, described the outcome as “a sign of stability, openness and reliability”.
Switzerland’s population has increased from 7.3 million in 2002 to 9.1 million today, with non-Swiss citizens accounting for 27% of residents.
Supporters of the proposal argued that limiting population growth would ease pressure on housing, transport networks, public services and the environment. However, those arguments failed to win enough support among voters.
The Swiss People’s Party, which has long campaigned against immigration, maintained that the measure was intended to protect public services and the environment. Critics, however, accused the party of using immigration as a scapegoat for wider economic and social challenges.
Many voters expressed concern that a population cap could worsen labour shortages in key sectors such as tourism, healthcare and elderly care. Business leaders also warned that the proposal could jeopardise Switzerland’s access to Europe’s single market.
More than half of Swiss exports are sold to the EU, and access to the bloc’s markets is linked to Switzerland’s commitment to free movement of people. Had the proposal passed, Switzerland would have been required to terminate that agreement.
Following the vote, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the outcome, saying: “The Swiss people have spoken. The EU and Switzerland share deep ties and a strong partnership”.
Despite the result, concerns about rising rents, housing shortages, crowded public transport and increasing healthcare costs remain prominent issues in Swiss politics.
Swiss People’s Party President Marcel Dettling argued that the vote did not resolve those problems, saying: “the population wants solutions. Not a single problem has been solved”.
The referendum highlighted a divide between urban and rural voters. Cities with larger immigrant populations strongly opposed the proposal. In the capital, Bern, nearly 84% of voters rejected the measure. Tourism-dependent regions, including areas around St Moritz and Zermatt, also voted against it due to their reliance on foreign workers.
Business groups had warned that restricting immigration could damage relations with the EU and make it harder for employers to recruit skilled workers. Foreign nationals make up around half of the workforce in Switzerland’s hotel sector, while hospitals and care homes also depend heavily on overseas staff.
Opponents of the proposal argued that immigration helps support Switzerland’s ageing population, noting that around 20% of residents are now over 65. They said younger workers and taxpayers are needed to sustain public services and economic growth.
The vote was held under Switzerland’s system of direct democracy, which allows nationwide referendums once campaigners collect 100,000 signatures. The result suggests many Swiss voters remain unconvinced that tighter immigration controls are the answer to the country’s economic and social challenges.
Faridah Abdulkadiri
