On 14 June 2026, Swiss voters will decide on the so-called Sustainability Initiative, also known as the “No to a 10-million Switzerland!” initiative. The proposal stipulates that the permanent resident population of Switzerland must not exceed 10 million people by 2050 and, in the event of continued high population growth, ultimately calls for the termination of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons with the European Union.

Since the introduction of the Free Movement of Persons in 2002, Switzerland’s permanent resident population has increased from just under 7.3 million to approximately 9.1 million people. Around 80% of this growth is attributable to net immigration, corresponding to an average annual net migration of about 65,000 people. While many European countries are likely to face stagnating or even declining populations in the future, continued growth is ex-pected for Switzerland.

As this development unfolds, social tensions are also increasing. An ever-growing share of the population associates population growth with rising rents, housing shortages, and overburdened infrastructure. Recent surveys indicate that there is a real chance of the initiative being accepted. In the following paragraphs, we outline why the termination of the Free Movement of Persons would effectively become the central lever if the initiative is strictly implemented, and why this would not only leave existing problems unresolved but could also create new areas of tension.

Initiative

The initiative stipulates that Switzerland’s permanent resident population must not exceed an upper limit of 10 million people by 2050. After this point, the Federal Council can adjust this threshold annually based on the natural increase in population.

The proposal also includes binding measures before this limit is reached. If the resident population exceeds 9.5 million, the Federal Council and Parliament are required to take steps to curb further population growth. These measures primarily relate to the areas of asylum and family reunification. Additionally, international agreements that impact population growth must be reviewed and, if necessary, renegotiated. Should these measures fail to keep the population within the target for two consecutive years, the initiative ultimately calls for the termination of the FMP agreement with the EU as a last resort.

Context

The initiative is part of a series of political efforts aimed at managing immigration. In 2014, the “Against Mass Immigration” initiative was narrowly accepted. However, its implementation was softened, as direct quotas would have been largely incompatible with the FMP agree-ment. Instead, a “Swiss-first” hiring rule was introduced to avoid jeopardizing the bilateral agreements.

The 2020 Limitation Initiative went a step further, explicitly demanding the termination of the Free Movement of Persons agreement. This proposal, however, was clearly rejected by voters.

The current proposal differs in its structure from prior initiatives. Rather than addressing immigration directly, it sets an upper limit for the total population. Control is exercised indirectly through individual immigration channels. Although formally not the primary objective, the termination of the Free Movement of Persons Agreement (FMP) could, if implemented strictly, effectively become the main lever.

Why termination of the free movement of persons could become the practical consequence

To ensure that the permanent resident population stays below 10 million by 2050, future population growth would need to be limited to an average of just about 35,000 people per year. The reference scenario from the Federal Statistical Office, however, projects a significantly higher average growth rate of around 50,000 people per year. In this scenario, Switzerland would reach the 10 million mark as early as the end of 2041. The threshold of 9.5 million people could be surpassed within the next five years.

This would require a rapid and substantial reduction in population growth. Therefore, the crucial question is: in which areas is there any room for political action? The initiative specifically mentions asylum and family reunification. However, both areas have only limited potential to reduce population growth to the required extent.

What if Swiss voters say “yes”?

Acceptance of the initiative would primarily be seen as a strong political signal. It would confirm that an increasing portion of the population associates population growth with housing shortages, rising rents, and greater strain on infrastructure.

At the same time, it remains uncertain how rigorously the initiative would ultimately be implemented in the event of approval. As seen with the 2014 mass immigration initiative, referendums on migration can later be implemented in a weakened form due to economic interests as well as institutional and European-political realities.

An actual termination of the Free Movement of Persons Agreement would have far-reaching effects beyond immigration. Due to the so-called "guillotine clause," such a termination would automatically render all Bilateral Agreements void. At the same time, ongoing negotiations with the European Union could be strained, and cooperation within the Schengen and Dublin frameworks could come under political pressure. The latter would also have implications for the area of asylum, as the return of asylum seekers to responsible EU states could become more difficult.

Yet, the underlying structural tensions would likely persist. Housing shortages, rising rents, and infrastructure strain are not solely attributable to population growth, but also to lengthy approval processes, regulatory hurdles, limited construction capacity, and the spatial concentration of living and working. At the same time, significantly reduced immigration could create new conflicts in the labor market and exacerbate shortages of skilled labor in specific industries.

The societal and emotional significance of these issues is real. However, whether artificially limiting population growth would truly provide a sustainable solution to the underlying problems remains questionable.

Risk for the real estate sector

Regardless of the outcome of the vote, the initiative also represents a significant political risk for the Swiss real estate sector. For investors, this is critical, not because of short-term market fluctuations, but due to growing uncertainty about long-term conditions related to demand, regulation, and location attractiveness. Ultimately, this uncertainty is likely to result in projects being postponed or locations deliberately avoided. Not because of a lack of demand, but because the rules of the game going forward remain unclear. As a result, political risks are increasingly becoming a decisive factor in real-estate investment decisions.