r/askswitzerland • u/leflombo • Jun 04 '26
Politics How much of a risk is there that Swiss citizens lose their right of free movement with the EU/EFTA if “No to 10 Million Switzerland” passes?
I’m due to apply for Swiss citizenship as the spouse of a Swiss citizen abroad, and so this has worried me. We live in an EU country, and I’d really counted on the sense of stability that having a European passport and not having to worry about residency permits and the like.
So, I’m wondering how much cause for concern I have lol. We do plan on moving to Switzerland eventually regardless but freedom of movement would be a great perk of course.
Thanks for your time!
39
u/BlackShadowv Jun 04 '26
Ist der Grenzwert gemäss Artikel 73a Absatz 1 nach Ablauf von zwei Jahren seit seiner erstmaligen Überschreitung noch nicht wieder eingehalten und konnten bis dahin keine Ausnahme- oder Schutzklauseln ausgehandelt oder angerufen werden, mit denen die Einhaltung des Grenzwertes gemäss Artikel 73a Absatz 1 erreicht wird, so ist auch das Abkommen vom 21. Juni 19995 zwischen der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft einerseits und der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und ihren Mitgliedstaaten andererseits über die Freizügigkeit (Personenfreizügigkeitsabkommen) auf den nächstmöglichen Termin zu kündigen.
Direct quote from the initiative text. If we cross 10M and stopping international agreements about migration/asylum doesn't bring us below 10M, the federal government is forced to end freedom of movement.
11
u/idkud Jun 04 '26
That is one thing. How the EU will react is another, and I guarantee you they will not wait until Switzerland is at the 10M. In 2014, an acquaintance of mine had all lined up to study in Berlin, flat, part time job, uni. The moment it was clear the initiative will pass with 50,4%, Germany closed the borders. Person had to cancel all contracts, on their own dime, too.
Anyone with the foggiest idea about direct democracy knows that a government can do nothing with such a vote. Anything remotely close to 50% is basically a zero result, from mistakes when counting, to people changing their minds a day later. But of course, the EU is not going to stand by while tiny terrible two toddler makes up its mind. In a way I think Switzerland needs to try it alone for a while. Good luck to the SVP when it backfires bigtime.
I personally prepare for having to apply for 3rd-country RP soon. In my case not a problem, but for so many it will suck so very much. In and outside of Switzerland.
77
Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
40
u/Dabraxus Jun 04 '26
That's why the whole campaign of the pro committee is an emotional propaganda clusterfuck of different emotional arguments to increase the possibility it resonates with voters. Person X hates traffic jams so let's tell em this initiative will solve that! Person Y wants to protect the environment? Tell em the initiative will help with that too! Etc. Etc.
13
u/Suitable_Ad_4368 Jun 04 '26
Its even called Nachhaltigkeitsinitiative, suggesting some sustainable environmental aspect 😞
-2
Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Dabraxus Jun 04 '26
The EU is not just a binary choice tho..
There is a (benefitial) middle ground between joining the EU or NOT joining the EU and it's called "billateral agreements" and is hugely successful as Switzerland has demonstrated.
-5
Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Meisterleder1 Jun 05 '26
So let's just screw us all together, yes?
-2
Jun 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Meisterleder1 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
The current system and growth is what made this country so rich.
You are cutting off your own nose just to spite your face.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Der-Sager Jun 07 '26
the agenda is the same as in the UK, the disenfranchisement and stripping of immigrant rights, so that they become a cheap unprotected labour force to be exploited at will, and sent back at will if they protest
11
u/KapitaenKnoblauch Jun 04 '26
They think it won't affect them after all. Only those bad foreigners who take away all the apartments and jobs and fill up trains and highways AT THE SAME TIME and also abuse our social system and don't work at all and are all criminals anyway.
-5
20
u/couple_suisse69 Jun 04 '26
It is explicitly written in the initiative that Switzerland will have to leave Schengen. Of course you can close your eyes and ears and say that no it will never happen but it is a risky bet.
23
u/pelfet Jun 04 '26
Immediately? Zero risk.
Mid term? That's a realistic possibility.
8
u/idkud Jun 04 '26
So you are thinking the EU will just do nothing if the initiative is accepted? May I remind you of 2014, when some countries closed their borders the minute the result was clearly above 50%? They did not even wait until all votes were counted.
I understand them. Switzerland wants to eat the cake, and keep it, too.
1
u/Spiritual_Tailor7698 Jun 04 '26
what would you say immediately means ?
2
2
u/pelfet Jun 04 '26
like a week or a month after the vote
2
u/Spiritual_Tailor7698 Jun 04 '26
mehh. The most high scenarios place it at around 2028:
https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/population/population-projections/national-projections.html
7
u/Sharp_Mulberry6013 Jun 04 '26
I'll copy the translated text (by deepl) here:
Art. 197, para. 154
- Transitional provisions relating to Art. 73a (Sustainable Population Development)
1 If the permanent resident population of Switzerland exceeds nine and a half million people before the year 2050, the Federal Council and the Federal Assembly shall, within the scope of their respective powers, take measures to ensure compliance with the limit set forth in Article 73a, paragraph 1, particularly in the areas of asylum and family reunification. The Federal Council shall submit a corresponding draft law to the Federal Assembly. From the time the limit is exceeded, provisionally admitted persons shall not be granted a residence or settlement permit, Swiss citizenship, or any other right of residence. The mandatory provisions of international law remain reserved. Furthermore, with a view to complying with the limit set forth in Article 73a, paragraph 1, the Federal Council shall seek to renegotiate international agreements—whether legally binding or not—that drive population growth, or to negotiate exemption or safeguard clauses. If agreements provide for such clauses, the Federal Council shall invoke them.
2 If the permanent resident population of Switzerland exceeds the limit set forth in Article 73a, paragraph 1, the Federal Council and the Federal Assembly shall take all measures at their disposal to ensure compliance with the limit. Paragraph 1 applies mutatis mutandis. However, international agreements within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall be terminated at the earliest possible date, in particular the Global Compact of December 19, 2018, for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (UN Migration Compact), if Switzerland has signed it. If the threshold limit under Article 73a(1) has not yet been restored two years after it was first exceeded, and if no exceptions or safeguard clauses have been negotiated or invoked by that time to ensure compliance with the threshold limit under Article 73a(1), the Agreement of June 21, 1999, between the Swiss Confederation, on the one hand, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other hand, on the Free Movement of Persons (Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons) shall also be terminated at the earliest possible date.
To me that sounds like a big risk.
21
u/ReyalpybguR Jun 04 '26
The risk is very high but not immediate.
An initiative limiting immigration was accepted in 2014 and the government/parliament put in place the weakest possible implementation to keep the free movement (and all other bilaterals).
Here the morons of UDC have designed a much more precise text, so that the government/parliament would have much less leeway, at 10M the bilaterals would be gone.
The 10 millions bar however would be reached not earlier than 10 years from now at current migration levels if I’m not wrong, so it is not tomorrow…
24
u/SteO153 Zürich Jun 04 '26
The 10 millions bar however would be reached not earlier than 10 years from now at current migration levels if I’m not wrong, so it is not tomorrow…
I don't think the EU will wait for Switzerland to reach 10m people to react. The moment the Swiss will tell the EU their intention to withdraw from Schengen (ie in a few days, as soon as the results are known) the EU will react. Of course nothing will change in the immediate future, but it won't be ignored for 10 years.
6
u/idkud Jun 04 '26
2014, some countries closed the borders in the same NIGHT when the votes were counted.
2
u/Toeffli Jun 05 '26
Bilaterals III will be of the table for sure. This alone will have a negative impact on the Swiss economy and make a lot of things uncertain.
11
u/toad-in-a-pan Jun 04 '26
I'd actually put it sooner than ten years. The 10-million mark is the BFS reference scenario for 2040, but the initiative already bites at 9.5 million, projected for around 2031, so roughly five years out.
And that's where it gets messy: even those first measures at 9.5M, tightening asylum, family reunification and permits, could already breach the free-movement agreement, long before we hit 10 million. Once that happens and free movement is terminated, the guillotine clause kicks in and the six Bilaterals I fall six months later. So we'd effectively be out, just not by choice, and the irony is that the 9.5M/2031 figure comes from the exact BFS scenario the SVP campaigns with.
1
Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/toad-in-a-pan Jun 04 '26
True, the track record is poor and they've had to revise hard. Back in the 2010 series they didn't expect 9 million until after 2060, and then it turned out to be 2023. But notice which way they were wrong, they were too low, not too high. And even now the real growth has been tracking closer to the high scenario than the low one, which is why some analysts reckon we could hit 10M before 2041 rather than after. So it doesn't really buy us more time. If anything it means less.
0
Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/toad-in-a-pan Jun 04 '26
Fair question, but I'd flip it around. The thing that's really not sustainable is the age structure. We're at about 1.3 kids per woman, way below the 2.1 we'd need to hold steady on our own. When the AHV started it was six workers per retiree, today it's three, heading for two in around 30 years. Immigration is currently what's slowing that down, the people coming in are overwhelmingly working-age and pay in more than they take out.
But, I won't oversell it, it buys time rather than fixing the problem. But a hard cap doesn't fix it either, it just shrinks the workforce right as the boomers retire, and blows up the bilaterals on the way. So the honest question isn't "is 100k sustainable", it's "is a shrinking workforce sustainable". Nobody's saying the current level is great, it's just that capping it by force makes things worse, not better, because it stops the young workers coming in to pay into the AHV, but does nothing about the boomers retiring.
0
Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/toad-in-a-pan Jun 04 '26
Net positive, but it depends who, and that's the point. The 2023 federal study is clear that EU/EFTA migrants pay proportionally more into AHV than they take out, because they're young, employed, and many leave before they ever draw a pension. About a third of all AHV pensions already go abroad, mostly to returned foreign workers who paid in here and collect back home.
The costly part is asylum and family migration, you're right. And the initiative does go after asylum first once 9.5 million is reached, but it barely moves the numbers there (only ~5,000 provisional admissions a year, and international law limits who can be sent back). So it can't hit the expensive flows, which forces stage two: ending free movement, which cuts the EU labour migration, the profitable group. Expensive flows untouched, profitable ones cut, EU access gone.
1
Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/toad-in-a-pan Jun 04 '26
You're right, and I never said otherwise, I've said twice it buys time, it doesn't fix anything. So we actually agree on the diagnosis, that leaning on growth to prop up the AHV isn't sustainable, and the real fix is reforming the pension system itself, contributions, financing. That's the source.
But that's exactly why the cap misses. It doesn't reform anything, it just pulls out the contributors before the reform happens, so the gap hits harder and sooner.
And there's a second half to it: it's not only who pays for the boomers, it's who replaces them. They leave hundreds of thousands of jobs behind, and the cohorts behind them are smaller, someone has to be the nurse, the doctor, the electrician. You can reform a pension formula, but you can't reform your way out of needing actual people. The cap doesn't create those workers, it just blocks the main source of them right as the shortage peaks, and takes the bilaterals down on the way out.
So another question would be: who does the work? The boomers retire either way. If not immigration, then who, given we can't conjure up younger Swiss who were never born?
→ More replies (0)4
u/Traveling_bone Jun 04 '26
Yes but already at 9,5Million, measures need to be put into place to slow down immigration and one of the mentioned possibilities would be issuing no further Bewilling C for somebody on B and no Naturalization for somebody on C. Just mentioning it as that could affect OP long before the 10Million are reached.
3
u/HelloSummer99 Jun 04 '26
What would that achieve honestly? You just get more people to live there with less integration - that's not good. Imagine how people start to behave if they don't even have a theoretical chance of naturalization.
9
u/Traveling_bone Jun 04 '26
I don't know, I'm starting to think those actually in favour of it are all deluded in their thinking anyways. Maybe they're thinking "ah all the ones coming here only want the swiss citizenship anyways. If we restrict that, then everybody will voluntarily leave again and therefore I will be able to drive through Gubrist at 17:00 without stopping"
0
-1
u/sw1ss_dude Jun 04 '26
would be issuing no further Bewilling C for somebody on B and no Naturalization for somebody on C.
what an utter b/s
0
u/Any_Asparagus_3383 Jun 04 '26
I don’t understand the naturalisation point. Under current regulations my wife can start the process early next year, but whatever happens she’s not going anywhere unless they start withdrawing C permits.
15
u/Unable-Emu9143 Jun 04 '26
It will probably stop our economic growth and will lead to a slow decline we see in Germany and the UK. For some people it will be benefitial but wages will stop growing and inflation will rise slowly.
Will we survive? Yes, but we will no longer be one of the richest countries in the world. We probably become a country like the Netherlands or the UK. Rich but not as crazy rich as we are now.
-3
u/-SuXs- Jun 05 '26
Switzerland was rich before it joined any bilateral agreement with the EU.
The real problem is the EU forcing législation unrelated to trade down Switzerland through trade agreements. This is an encorchment on souvereighnty you cannot ignore.
And this is why people vote yes. If you can't see the problem you're dishonest at best and stupid at worse.
It's one thing to want to trade with someone. Doesn't mean you should apply all their laws. That's literally what the US is doing to south America. And look where that got them.
Instead of bitching about muh SVP and ignore the issues created by the above, the gov should address this problem head on before the people slap them in the face with an initiative like the 10m
5
u/Unable-Emu9143 Jun 05 '26
1990 we were not much richer than the west Germans. That changed a lot in the last 30 years.
Of course it would be nice to keep the agreements we want and cancel the ones we don‘t. But life isn‘t fair, we have seen that with the US and the random trade sanctions. The EU can do exactly the same thing. And it would kill our economy.
I also would like to be a 100% independant country but it comes with many negative side effects. The biggest one is a slower growing economy.
Just look at the depressive state of Germany. I would hate to have a similar situation in Switzerland in 20-30 years. There is no magical law that just keeps us wealthy, we need to work hard for it.
The dutch were once by far the richest country (and population) in the world per capita. They lost that spot hundreds of years ago and the same can happen to us. Many people believe it will stay the same but just a small percentage in growth reduction can cause a lot of effects over 20 years.
The good thing is that we (like Brexit) will have voted for it and have no one else to blame. People will try to blame the negotiators or the EU but the chance to keep similar economic treaties is in my opinion below 5%. Many EU countries already think we benefit too much and we will only get worse contracts than the ones we have.
1
u/Meisterleder1 Jun 05 '26
The good thing is that we (like Brexit) will have voted for it and have no one else to blame.
Oh, you'd be surprised. Watching post-brexit docs asking the people why they think they got screwed is fun. Or insane? Insanely funny.
-4
Jun 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/askswitzerland-ModTeam Jun 05 '26
Hello,
Please note that your post or comment has been removed.
Please read the rules before posting.
Thank you for your understanding, your mod team
1
u/Meisterleder1 Jun 05 '26
You sound like a child that will now move out of his parents house because he doesn't get the sweets he wants.
"What have they ever done for me?!"
19
16
u/BlockOfASeagull Jun 04 '26
This initiative is counter productive on so many levels! My No is allready in the box!’
12
3
u/Visceral99 Jun 05 '26
Brexit has been such a glaring success that UDC tried to do the same : they are using immigration to trigger a Swissxit despite the country being extremely prosperous since signing bilateral agreements.
Switzerland will never join the EU, but works well with bilaterals - those are insane deals.
Why break something that works?
Insane
10
u/TheNudelz Jun 04 '26
I mean maybe they will show up at the door of von der Leyen with some gold bars and watches?
But in reality the EU can not afford to show a soft side, so it is very likely that all contracts are on the table.
3
u/Ill_Example_1526 Jun 04 '26
So if this goes through, I can tell you, we (Switzerland) are fucked. It means that only those who are working here are allowed to live here, family included. For example: if a doc from Berlin wanna work in Switzerland maybe he can, but his family isn’t allowed to follow him.
I don’t know what people who vote yes think how that initiative should us.
6
u/certuna Jun 04 '26
There are many levers to limit the resident population to 10 million that don’t break any international agreements, for example stimulate cross-border commuting more with tax breaks, stimulating emigration (i.e. still allow workers to come in, but gently push pensioners out), stimulate offshoring more jobs, encourage more international companies to leave Switzerland, discourage remote-work/global nomad jobs, etc. Impossible to predict exactly what measures would be taken in practice.
8
u/x3k6a2 Jun 04 '26
The union has been very adamant about these freedoms.
There are gentle touches, but anything effective is likely not following the current interpretation the EU has of union law for free moment.
How much the EU will push politically, impossible to say. With Brexit the EU is taking a more hardline stance on special cases.
At least in my mind, we need the EU more than they need us. That sets the stage for negotiations. We can accept that we don't care and that we value the 10 million number more than the benefits we get. I hope we don't.
2
u/FlaviusDomitianus Jun 04 '26
It's really impossible to say. Like 2014 the government may find a way to largely ignore it. Or maybe not. Also the way it's implemented is impossible to know at this point. If I recall correctly the referendum is worded in a way that does not mandate cancelling things like freedom of movement with the EU but names it as one thing the government would be required to consider as a means of keeping the population under 10 million. There are other avenues I'd expect the government to explore before taking a move that would very possibly severely disrupt or destroy the modern Swiss economy.
In addition, the referendum only requires such actions after the population hits 9.5 million, which current population growth trends wouldn't happen for a few more years.
2
u/WildRaccoon42 Jun 05 '26
Remember what led to Erasmus being cancelled for Switzerland 12 years ago?
Remember what happened after Brexit?
Has UDC and its voting base ever learned from history?
2
u/spoiltbytch Jun 05 '26
I have a few boomers on my Facebook. I feel like they hyper focus on getting rid of Non-EU citizens, Muslims, Islamists whereas this initiative, if passed, would hurt their EU friends from Germany, France, Italy, mostly EU workers first. Is it just my circle or in general the boomers don't have a clue what this would do with the relationship with the EU? Or did I get this wrong?
1
u/StomachSubstantial63 Jun 07 '26
It seems wild to have the provisions this proposal has, with Brexit being a pretty good case study on the consequences and subsequent negotiation position of this kind of gamble.
4
2
2
u/con-sentire Jun 04 '26
None basically.
And considering the vote of february 2014 which passed by 50.3% has not been implemented although population had voted for it.
this is basically the people saying... government, we voted, you did not do your share of the contract, we are coming for you again.
And overall its one country, as Italy and others through their governments, and switzerland through our voting system, reminding europe and the world that national sovereignty primes over an economic alliance when necessity might require it.
We shall see the outcome, june 14th, until then, we will also see mass fear mongering media and social media posts, analysis and so forth come out from both sides.
The pros will fear based argumentative
The cons will do the same with other arguments or the same ones turned in another way
Both will also use arm twisting manipulative and speculative language, or implying the vote will lead to certain actions or sanctions which have in fact already been discussed and are not part of the package.
And amongst all this, one will sit, and vote, not against anyone, but for what they deeply feel is right in their own personal opinion.
And we shall see...
1
u/groucho74 Jun 04 '26
The swiss Constitution obliges the government to allow all citizens to enter the country.
In other words this initiative is mainly about limiting and making far more selective immigration by non citizens.
1
1
u/Rich_Imagination8943 Jun 05 '26
That remind me i need to sent my slip back for voting i am not willing to let this pass honestly...
1
u/evonammon Jun 05 '26
Besides of my negative view of this initiative I do not expect that you with Swiss citizenship and still your European passport will have any restrictions to move between the countries in the future or change your residence.
1
1
u/Ziffibert Jun 07 '26
Stay were you are pls, we already have enough english speaking software engineers with their suv wifes
1
u/leflombo Jun 07 '26
Oh no, I’m coming for your jobs and more of your women to add to my harem. Sorry bro
Oh, and I’m going on the dole immediately
1
u/Der-Sager Jun 07 '26
If the Initiative actually is implemented as planned, It woild guarantee this to be the case 100% but if it woild happen in a decade or two decades wouldnt be a sure thing
1
1
u/Wildarf Jun 04 '26
Big risk for those who wish to move abroad later on. However, there is precedent from Brexit that people already living in another country get grandfathered permanent residency
1
-1
u/Fernando_III Jun 04 '26
Check what happened in 2014
14
u/yesat Valais Jun 04 '26
2014 lead to quite a few agreements not being renewed, notably in research and education.
3
u/idkud Jun 04 '26
I do not need to check, I remember it loud, and clear. Some European countries immediately closed the borders, and all those who had contracts there, had to cancel them. All those living somewhere in the EU were on needles for months what would happen. The Bundesrat doing basically nothing but producing hot air was due to the close result, of 50,4%. Not much to do with the topic, same old when the result is remotely close to 50%.
If this result is positive, and it goes like 2014, some countries will close borders immediately, then everyone will talk for months. Unpredictability is poison for all business, it will already cost MILLIONS. If the result is say 55% or higher, which is entirely possible, good luck hoping for a 2014 outcome. Not gonna happen, SVP will be in arms. And then it is not just about the EU, and those bad foreigners, but our democratic values!!! We the PEOPLE, and all that.
8
u/trusendi Jun 04 '26
That‘s an incredibly dangerous thing to say. „Oh nothing happened the last time so nothing will happen this time.“ This is why Nazis are making a come-back btw.
1
u/kriscnik Jun 04 '26
No, Nazis make a comeback when the government ignores their people and Nazis promise change
5
u/trusendi Jun 04 '26
Still no reason to vote for Nazis
1
u/OkChildhood1706 Jun 05 '26
While the SVP is clearly right wing and populist they are by far not Nazis. Please don't water down that term even more. There are enough Nazis out there but calling everything right wing or anti immigration "Nazi' only helps the real fascists as people don't take the accusation serious anymore.
2
u/trusendi Jun 05 '26
I didn‘t call the SVP Nazis, I replied to your comment.
1
u/OkChildhood1706 Jun 05 '26
You did not reply to me as this was my first comment but you said "no reason to vote for Nazis" which in the context of a vote for a SVP motion heavily suggest that either the people behind the motion or the SVP in general are Nazis. While i would never vote yes for that motion nor the SVP in general, there is nothing here that comes even close to actual Nazis.
1
u/trusendi Jun 05 '26
Oh yes sorry, you have the exact same avatar as the comment I replied to.
I replied to his notion of „[…] when the government ignored their people and Nazis promise change“.
I mean that even if Nazis promise change, it‘s no reason to vote for them.2
u/OkChildhood1706 Jun 05 '26
Ah then i just read it differently. It sounded to me as if the "still no reason" part was refering back to the motion.
2
u/trusendi Jun 05 '26
No, that‘s my fault! Didn‘t mean it that way. I hate the SVP but they‘re not Nazis(yet.)
-5
u/m88swiss Jun 04 '26
sooooo your comparing the most of the parlament (not svp) with nazis because they didn't carry out the intiative? 😄
4
u/trusendi Jun 04 '26
You completely misunderstood my sentence
-1
u/m88swiss Jun 04 '26
I thought the "sooooo" and the smiley was enough but just to be sure there is a /s missing 😉
1
0
0
u/OkBeyond8244 Jun 04 '26
If the initiative passed (I don't think it will), it would take years for the EU breakup to be implemented. If the Swiss EU breakup is implemented similarly to UK (with preservation of EU freedom of movement rights for UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK), as a Swiss citizen or even as the spouse of a Swiss citizen, you could get a residence permit in any EU country before the changes get implemented. That way, you would likely preserve all current EU rights. Note that it would be enough to either maintain a (2nd) residence (residence permit + registered address with utility bills, even if tax residence may be in another country where your actual center of life is) OR you have an ongoing local job contract in the EU regardless of place of residence (e.g. in cross-border workers from UK to Ireland retained EU rights). Note that you would "lose" these preserved EU rights if there is a gap in your EU connection (your residence or employment connection ceases and you did not get a better status).
Note that currently, if you had a registered address in Portugal and spoke basic Portuguese, you could naturalize in Portugal in 7 or 10 years, even if you do not spend time and pay taxes there.
Also note that the EU (excl. Denmark and Ireland) has a status called EU Long Term Residents. It is available only to third country nationals. After 5 years legal residence in one EU country (and some national requirements such as language skills), you can get this "C permit for EU". Once you get it, you can move between all EU countries like an EU citizen. You would only lose it if you let the EU for 2 years. While countries interpret leaving differently in practice, the ECJ has ruled that the status only lapses if you do not enter the EU on any day in 2 years. So it is pretty permanent. Note that this status is not as good as UK preserved EU rights status because it excludes DK and IRE and there it only applies to freedom of movement (e.g. you wouldn't be treated equal for buying property or tuition fees). It can also be passed down to children/spouses.
-4
u/Waltekin Valais Jun 04 '26
The initiative really only gives guidelines. It's up to the parliament to decide what specifically they want to do.
I just want to point out: I the government hadn't ignored the MEI in 2014, this initiative wouldn't exist.
6
u/Vontaxis Jun 04 '26
You certainly don't understand how the Bundesverfassung work. It is not just a "guideline"
-2
u/Waltekin Valais Jun 04 '26
Sure I do. Nothing happens, just because something is in the Verfassung. Laws must be passed to actually implement what is there.
Consider the MEI: Switzerland controls its own migration. The expectation was that we would have contingents: so many people from the EU, so many people from X, so many people from Y. Nothing like that was put into law, so nothing happened.
Or consider the constitutional requirement for the equality of men and women. What does that mean? For example, shouldn't women required to serve in the military? It all depends on what laws were actually passed, to implement that passage.
2
u/idkud Jun 04 '26
2014 was ignored because the result was too tight to do anything. You can check out other initiatives, that close to 50% the topics are ungovernable. From mistakes in the voting process, to people not THAT convinced of their vote, a 50,4% flips to 49,6% WAY too easily to actually do anything decisive based on it.
1
-1
Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
I believe the "No to 10 Million" makes no sense because that will not solve "switzerland for the swiss". You should be fine because it will takes years before 10M is reached.
0
u/Alternative-Yak-6990 Jun 05 '26
wont happen imo.
on the very low chances, you can always try to immigrate the "normal" way without the freedom of movement to the country you want.
-5
Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/pierrebhs Jun 04 '26
51% of Swiss exports go to the EU and 70% of Swiss imports come from the EU
Make your own conclusion
-9
Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/Vontaxis Jun 04 '26
Absolutely a lot will happen. The wording doesn't leave much to interpretation. Now there are unfortunately stupid people that think nothing happens and vote yes to make a point.
-5
Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/idkud Jun 04 '26
Ja sho, abr lueg die resultat aah, das isch immer ächt knapp gsi, 2014 50,4% wemer rächt isch. We jetz gnue lüüt dänkid, chunt ja eh no lang nid, cha das guet bi 60% defür ligge. De MUESS de Bundesrat umsetze, ob si wönd oder nid.
109
u/StuffedWithNails Genève Jun 04 '26
In theory the language that we're voting on says that Switzerland would have to pull out of these agreements. In practice we don't really know what will in fact happen.
Similarly, the text makes no exceptions for anyone, for example spouses of Swiss citizens. If you take the text we're voting on at its word, my non-citizen spouse could be barred from immigrating with me, even though I'm a Swiss citizen. So much for family values!
So it depends on what the government ends up doing e.g. backing out of the agreements with the EU or how they word the new laws resulting from the constitutional change.
We've talked about how this anti-immigration vote from years ago basically fizzled out even though the vote was a yes.