655
submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Nearly 55% of voters in Switzerland on Sunday rejected an initiative championed by the top right-wing party to cap the rich Alpine country’s population at 10 million, early results showed.

The populist Swiss People’s Party, which has the most seats in parliament, has stirred up and fostered anti-migration sentiment over the years, notably about an influx of workers from the neighboring European Union.

Some have dubbed the proposal a “Swiss Brexit” because it could jeopardize Switzerland’s deep ties to the European Union anchored by deals that foster economic growth, cultural ties and cross-border travel, among other things. Switzerland is not one of the EU’s 27 member states, but it is all but surrounded by four of them

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] justlemmyin@lemmy.world 163 points 1 month ago

Aww yep, good to hear only 45% support 'capping' the people they don't like, phew.

[-] sours@lemmy.world 104 points 1 month ago

It's so fucking embarrassing to be a human being and watch dumb shit like this and authoritarianism growing around the world.

[-] NOPper@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 month ago

So many countries started because of this kind of shit I've human history, but we're all outta globe to pack our shit and start a proper country with blackjack and hookers...🫤

[-] possumparty 17 points 1 month ago

somehow you left this comment five times

[-] NOPper@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 month ago

Holy shit...appreciate the heads up! Its funny too, the top one is the only one with the spelling correction edit. No idea what happened but thanks for pointing it out!

[-] TheDuke@europe.pub 30 points 1 month ago

Well, you have to see it in a bit of a context. Many votes in Switzerland are concluded on a much tighter scale. Sometimes stuff gets accepted or declined by 50.5% or even less. 55% against the initiative is pretty decent, especially when it looked like it would pass for a long time. Me personally I would have liked to see 95% against this crap, but this has never happened on any matter that was voted on, so...

Also, the cities and suburbs, with the supposed "problems of immigration" right in front of their doorstep, all declined the initiative. It was the country side and small communities that aren't even affected by immigration, that voted for it. This shows once again, that fear is a powerful tool to mobilize masses. Thankfully it didn't work this time but we gotta stay alert and fight the narrative of fearmongering every single day.

Source: Me, I'm Swiss.

[-] 8uurg@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Another indication that interacting with others from outside your bubble is the best vaccine against right wing rethoric regarding immigration: in rural areas and suburbs such interactions tend to be much rarer than within the city...

[-] Eril@feddit.org 29 points 1 month ago

My thoughts exactly. Everyone is like "the Swiss have spoken and are clearly not supporting capping the population". And I feel like that is not really showing the reality...

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 51 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What is it with right wing populists and their obsession with immigration? All they ever do is state the immigration is bad, and that it's the root of all evil, provide no evidence for the claim, and then just keep parroting the claim ad infinitum until either elected or arrested/shot.

I get that they're racist but they're bordered by the likes of France, who exactly is it that's coming over that they have a problem with?

[-] sunbytes@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

Basically it's a way to distract from actual political issues, and shift blame to people that have a hard time defending themselves.

It's a very old technique but ususally works very well. The Romans used to execute Christians, and in mediaeval times European leaders would do pogroms (of Jews), burning of Catholics etc. Then 20th century examples like segregation, Nazism and fascists like Oswald Mosely.

Nowadays we have the modern versions in MAGA and Reform and "stop the boats" and whatever this Swiss movement calls itself.

Always condeming "the other" and making sure only to pick on those who can't stand up or really speak for themselves, because that persecution is cheaper and easier than acually solving problems.

Especially if those problems could be solved by worker reforms and progressive tax systems.

[-] jaxxed@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I doubt it was an honest goal. It was most likely a post-truth political device for aligbment.

load more comments (28 replies)
[-] Darkard@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

Hmm, yet another right wing politician, peddling policy that would weaken the European Union.

Holly gosh, I wonder where he gets his ideas and/or funding from?

Switzerland is not part of the EU. It is well known that they are neutral, I would say it is common knowledge. Are you trying to spread misinformation or just clueless?

[-] Jiral@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Switzerland is in the EU's Single Market and has other important agreements in place with the EU. A key reason for that referendum was the SVP's ambition to force Switzerland out of the Single market. They can't get the Swiss to agree to that so they try it in hidden ways, this time with playing the anti-foreigner card, while not mentioning that this is designed in reality to force Switzerland out of the Single Market. So yes, this referndum had a lot to do with the EU. The majority of Swiss voters was not fooled though, again. But also this time, the SVP will not take no for an answer and will try again, with a different construct.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GardenGeek@europe.pub 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Since Switzerland has strong associations with the EU which were actively threatened by a possible implementation of this proposal he's not completely wrong. This would have weakened EU as well as Switzerland as both parties profit of their strong cooperation.

For this reason foreign powers try to end or impede the cooperation between the different national states and divide the continent in order to conquer it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] rapchee@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

they didn't say they were part of the eu

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

A lack of repercussions

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

What does the article mean when it says switzerland is "all but surrounded by four of them"?

[-] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 month ago

It means Switzerland is all but surrounded by four EU member states. Germany, Italy, France, and Austria.

The point being every country around them is in the EU and Switzerland is a notable enclave when you look at a map.

[-] gnufuu@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 month ago

Liechtenstein: "Am I a joke to you?"

[-] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If you've been to Lichtenstein, you know the answer is yes. We have villages that are bigger. And the architecture there is eclectic.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] anothermember@feddit.uk 14 points 1 month ago

"All but" has always confused me as a phrase even as a native English speaker. You would think it means it isn't surrounded at all, i.e. "all but:" = "the last thing it would be is:", but apparently not.

[-] severalkittens@ani.social 8 points 1 month ago

It's the worst phrase and we need to stop using it! Most of the time the actual intended meaning can be found by just removing "all but". Switzerland is all but surrounded == Switzerland is surrounded

[-] dbdr@nord.pub 29 points 1 month ago

No, it means it's almost surrounded. Lichtenstein is not part of the EU.

[-] wjrii@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Which is the point of the phrase of course. It’s meant to simultaneously acknowledge and dismiss the “well ackshully” crowd. No, Switzerland is not fully surrounded, but also it doesn’t matter in any politically meaningful way.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

It's the worst phrase

It's not even in the top 1000 worst phrases

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] calamitycastle@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

I have no particular skin in this game, but reading the article:

  1. Results are still pending
  2. Turnout of 59% > 55% of 59% is actually 32%

Come on folks 👀

[-] wheezy@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Depends entirely on how the voting results are coming in. It's entirely reasonable to call a result if the sample of votes counted already is a representative sample of the whole.

A counter example would be the recent elections in California. The early results came in from rural red areas for the governors race. So the early results were heavily weighed to the voting trends of those counties rather than the much different high density urban counties.

Also. Article mentions 55% of voters. It never said 55% of the total population. It just also stated independently a 59% total turnout. They wrote it perfectly fine.

Actual results map for anyone interested.

https://abstimmungen.admin.ch/en/details?proposalId=6860

TLDR: There is nothing wrong with the way the article shared percentages or inferring results from a partial count.

[-] exu@feditown.com 5 points 1 month ago

That's a moderately high participation rate for Switzerland.

See this list of past votes.

https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/politics/popular-votes.html

[-] Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago

How do you cap population? Abortion is mandatory now!

[-] jestho@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

1940s Europe: 👀

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 11 points 1 month ago

Just what the hell kind of law is that?

[-] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 month ago

A fascist law.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

I'm please to hear of the results. I didn't think the "No" side would have won by more points because the pre-referendum polls showed neck and neck.

Anyway, it's a silly initiative to begin with. I was thinking even if the "Yes" side won, in my mind I'm thinking "let the leopards eat their faces". Never mind the arguments on culture and so on, the economic damage to capping the population is insurmountable because it means fewer workers to migrate. And also, how is capping 10 million even logistically possible? Are they going to deport people? Who decides who to deport if a person is either long term resident or born and raised there? Are they going to do sterilisation if by some miracle there is a baby boom (which by the way, Switzerland like the rest of the world right now is having fewer fertility rate) and the population is reaching 10 million? Far right policies are moronic because they are purely based on emotions. Leopards eventually do eat their faces.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Jiral@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

The SVP sold it as anti-foreigner thing but it was really about forcing Switzerland out of the Single Market, a Swiss eqivalent for Brexit. Again. The SVP doesn't take no for an answer.

[-] SCmSTR 6 points 1 month ago

The most mundane way to have sex to break federal law.

[-] 0x0@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

55%... wow... what a landslide... /slowclap

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] panthera_@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago

Switzerland should simply allow migrants with needed skills. This would automatically control migration and the population since it's difficult to believe that Swiss have no skills.

[-] sznowicki@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

I might be wrong here but AFAIK they have a deal with EU that makes them join the four freedoms, which makes them not able to control who gets in and who not as long as the immigrants are from EU.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Exeous@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

44% to little

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
655 points (100.0% liked)

World News

57135 readers
1953 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS