It’s not about 3rd countries- of course they will allow any of their citizens to go make a better life …
It’s about CH and blatant discrimination, disrespect, treatment towards the person, while CH claims neutrality, civility, fairness, etc …
The reason EU people has better conditions is because the EU negotiated better conditions, not out of the kindness of Swiss hearts, civility of fairness.
Within the EU there are countries that have reciprocal agreements with Switzerland about accelerated C permit.
Some 3rd countries have agreements with Switzerland for vocational training. Every agreement has been the result of negotiation. If no one cares, no agreement.
4 Likes
The initiative does not specify. It would therefore be up to the subsequent implementation. No one can seriously predict it.
It does. But CH has also since its beginning defined and redefined these three terms.
A graphical story of popular initiatives about immigration, starting 1965:
1 Like
Hm interesting it looks like more details on planned implementation are available now since the time I created this thread.
It seems like C EU holders are rather safe to naturalise.
Lichtenstein comes to my mind, I think they’ve been having quotas for a while and 50% of B permits get allocated by chance, but they have a special agreement with EEA allowing to be doing this
I wonder how they’ll account for Swiss people marrying foreigners and bringing them to live here with a permit and eventual citizenship? If they are trying to keep the number under 10 million then Swiss people keep bloody falling in love with all manner of Johnny Foreigner ( 
), that’s going to mess up the plan.
Federal Statistical Office (FSO) forecasts indicate the population will hit 10 million by 2040 and reach 10.5 million by 2055 under the reference scenario, driven mainly by migration (annual growth of 0.5%). Earlier estimates suggested the 2030s, but recent data points to 2040.
Don’t expect this will affect me too much. But will vote No to avoid pissing off the neighbours.
Another problem with direct democracy - people should be voting for what benefits society as a whole and not just considering how it affects themselves (or their neighbours feelings).
I’d say it’s only a “problem” if you can’t vote.
Switzerland’s quality of life and peaceful society when you compare it to a raft of other places would suggest direct democracy is a feature rather than a bug.
That Maslow bloke had a good point…
Saw an analysis a couple of days ago (I think in the Tagi) suggesting that with the current birth rate the 10 million will now never be reached.
If everyone votes to her/his advantage, this adds up to the advantage of society as a whole.
1 Like
This is exactly why it is a problem as minority views/groups are ignored or could face hardship/unintended consequences.
In an extreme case, and to illustrate my point, fascism was really good for Nazi Germany (up to the war) and was an advantage to society as a whole but a minority of people were marginalised.
Not sure Nazi Germany was a direct democracy, though. Not even sure that old Adolf got a majority when he came to power.
If only people voted for or supported something that benefits them directly. That would be great.
About minorities…the issue is that sometimes the system only oppresses people, there’s no clear indication of who benefits from this. Anyway, it happened under Democracy.
The (Swiss) parliamentary chamber said it recognises “that a minority of Swiss citizens were victims of persecution in their own country that qualifies as a crime against humanity under current international law”.
Parliament has appealed to the Confederation, cantons and communes to work to protect the interests of the Yenish and Sinti communities and recognise the nomadic way of life as a living tradition.
In February 2025, the Federal Council wrote that a total of 2,000 children had to be assumed to have been placed elsewhere by 1973, when the government categorised the persecution of Yenish children as a crime against humanity.
Wealthy expats are happy to pay stupid prices to rent apartments in places like Zug and along the lake down to Walchwil. The normally placid Swiss are starting to get a bit fed up by being displaced and though I am sure the initiative will get a nein I can’t see the issue going away and it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s tighter than our elite expect.
The neighbours I was referring to are our neighbouring countries. Switzerlands relations with them will be to the benefit, or detriment, of all Swiss residents. Not just me.
1 Like
That’s good! I thought the actual people in your street!
1 Like
Sometimes, before a referendum, in a particular area, there are an abundance of campaign posters but only for one side of a vote - quite often the SVP in our area at least.
One could be naive to think that was because there was only support for that in the area but in fact advertising can be funded by companies with a financial, or ideological (think Läderach) interest in getting the vote through.
Of course NGOs, charities and so on could also fund campaigns but their purse-strings are usually a bit tighter.
Half the money for referendums comes from business associations.
Transparency rules were only introduced for political financing in Switzerland in 2023.
I’m not knocking Direct Democracy but merely pointing out that it has it’s drawbacks like any other system and is definitely open to abuse.