I KNEW something was up when a mini newspaper dropped into the letterbox. Zuwanderung (Immigration): 12 pages packed with data, facts and background. Then a big notice appeared at the end of our road, willing everyone to vote ‘Yes’ to the ‘No Initiative’. What is going on?
This week, a glossy brochure arrived, summarising all the reasons we should go out and vote. There will be a referendum on June 14, when Swiss voters will decide whether the ‘No to 10 Million initiative’ instigated by the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) should become law. It seeks to drastically reduce the influx of immigrants from the European Union and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) states to ensure the population doesn’t rise above 10million, which would overburden key infrastructure like housing, public transport, healthcare and schools.
Major problems include:
- concreting over the countryside
- overcrowded roads and public transport
- housing shortage and soaring rents
- massive increase in foreign criminality and violence
- excessive foreign pressure in schools adversely affecting Swiss children’s future
- overcrowded jobs market
- increased demands on social services and rising costs to taxpayers
- the loss of Swiss identity and homeland.
It claims the Swiss are being fed fake news about the skills migrants bring to the economy and the subsequent benefit to GDP. In fact, out of every ten immigrants only one brings specialist skills to sectors where there is a dearth. A further four work in sectors where there is already over-supply. The remaining five do not work at all, and end up as a financial burden on the taxpayer.
As a result Switzerland’s GDP per head has declined sharply. While the country controlled its immigration policies – up to 2001 – there was a steady increase in GDP p/h of 1.83 per cent. Since then, because of free movement agreements with the EU, this has dropped to a mere 0.6 per cent.
There has been a huge increase in asylum-seeking, rising from 80,000 in 2002 to almost half a million last year. In total, there have been 2.26million immigrants over the last 24 years. This, in a land of only 9.1million people, is no longer sustainable, since the vast majority are young Muslim men, a trend which will ultimately overwhelm the traditional character and culture of the country.
In essence the SVP see this initiative as a last-ditch measure to save Switzerland: essentially to keep Switzerland Swiss.
This is not the first time the issue has sparked intense political debate. There have been eight previous bids to limit population growth, all overwhelmingly rejected, except in 2014 when the ‘Against Mass Immigration’ vote targeted the free movement treaty with the EU, and narrowly passed (50.3 per cent in favour). Early surveys of this new referendum indicated a very close outcome, with 47 per cent against and 45 per cent in favour, with a sizeable number still undecided.
Opponents of ‘No to 10 Million’ have been throwing really big money at their campaign. Their record-breaking CHF9million (£8.5million) vastly outspends the ‘Yes’ camp, and comes mainly from big business and the trade unions. The ‘Yes’ camp has raised around CHF6.4million from the SVP and individual donations.
Most government bodies, plus economists, employers and law enforcement agencies, strongly oppose the initiative, and publish alarming forecasts of serious labour shortages in healthcare, manufacturing, construction, hospitality and IT. With less money for state pensions, an end to free movement and all the bilateral agreements with the EU, it would end up costing CHF520billion over 20 years, and damage trade, security, education and research.
But by this month the proposal seems likely to succeed. Polls suggest 52 per cent support, motivated by the risks now associated with increased immigration (costs, security, crime, burdens on housing and services) while the 46 per cent against still cite a skilled labour shortage and the risk to EU treaties.
Switzerland is no stranger to high levels of migration, while maintaining conservative traditions, religious observance and vibrant patriotism. About 41 per cent of the permanent resident population have a migration background. Roughly 80 per cent are first-generation immigrants who were born abroad, while some 27 per cent of the total Swiss population are foreign nationals who do not hold a Swiss passport. Its major companies operate at the cutting edge of research and technology and employ highly skilled personnel from all over the world. For example, Sandoz, the Swiss head-quartered global leader in off-patent medicines, employs a highly diverse workforce of more than 20,000 people representing more than 100 nationalities in more than 100 countries, and its recent report emphasises an expected acceleration in growth.
The major difference is that up to 2001, the country had complete discretion over its immigration policies, and chose to focus on quality and selected skill sets in line with its industrial expansion. But since agreeing to free movement treaties with the EU and EFTA countries, the rate of immigration has risen sharply, including numbers of asylum-seekers. The indications are that the Swiss population is becoming increasingly alarmed that the rate of immigration is outstripping the pace of acceptable social change.
It is also likely that they are aware of the situation in other European countries, not least in Britain. As TCW reported, small boat migrant numbers since 2018 have now passed 200,000, and are likely to cost the UK taxpayer up to £65billion. And this refers only to illegals. The ONS 2024 report on population growth indicates that if immigration continues at its recent rate, Britain’s population will expand to 70million by 2033.
Only now, with the Unite the Kingdom protests, has anti-immigration sentiment taken to the streets in earnest, causing Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to accuse organisers of ‘peddling hatred and division, plain and simple’, and the Government to block 11 foreign nationals, described as ‘far-right agitators’, from entering the country.
Would that Britain had a similar mechanism to that of the Swiss referendum, an integral element in its system of direct democracy by which every citizen has a voice that counts. Instead it took a foreign politician to speak up for the UK protesters. US Vice President J D Vance told a reporter: ‘It’s okay to want to defend your culture. It’s okay to want to live in a safe neighbourhood. It’s reasonable for the people of Western societies to want to control who comes into their country and who doesn’t.’
Of course it is! Would that we had a statesman prepared to say just that to the Starmer Government, or indeed to the EU Commission.
It’s not just a good idea to value and protect the culture, traditions and sovereignty of your country. It’s the duty of every responsible citizen. Switzerland understands that. It’s long past time that the British voter took the same action. If we don’t protect our culture and sovereignty, no one else will.
