Geneva, Swiss Confederation – In a referendum that has sent ripples across Europe, Swiss voters have decisively rejected a proposal to cap the country’s population at 10 million. The initiative, backed by the populist Swiss People’s Party, was defeated by a margin of 55% to 45%, with turnout high at 65%. But what has caught the eye of observers is the surprising praise heaped on Britain’s immigration model during the campaign. Yes, Britain. The land of Brexit, the Rwanda scheme and endless political wrangling over net migration figures.
The Swiss proposal was blunt: limit permanent residency to 0.2% of the population per year, effectively capping the nation at 10 million. Proponents argued it would protect Swiss identity, wages and public services. Opponents countered that it would cripple an economy dependent on foreign workers, alienate the European Union and undermine the country’s humanitarian tradition.
Yet the most interesting twist came from the centre-right FDP, which invoked Britain’s post-Brexit points-based system as a model of “managed migration”. “The British have shown that you can control numbers without slamming the door,” said FDP parliamentarian Isabelle Moret on national television. “They have a system that prioritises skills, fills labour gaps and maintains public support.”
This is a remarkable turn of phrase. For years, Britain’s immigration system was the punchline of European jokes. Now, in the rarified air of Swiss referenda, it is held up as a benchmark. What changed? The answer lies in the quiet, bureaucratic revolution that followed Brexit. The points-based system, while far from perfect, was designed to be transparent and responsive. It allowed the government to tweak thresholds based on economic need. It was a far cry from the chaotic free-for-all that had preceded it.
But there is a deeper cultural shift at play. The Swiss are famously pragmatic. They did not reject the population cap out of some zealous globalism. They looked at the numbers and concluded that a hard cap would hurt their prosperity. Switzerland has a foreign-born population of 30%, the highest in Europe after Luxembourg. Its economy relies on cross-border workers from France, Germany and Italy. A cap would mean companies unable to hire, universities losing talent, and the healthcare system collapsing.
Britain’s system, by contrast, allowed them to imagine a middle way: control without isolation. It is an irony not lost on those who recall the Brexiteers’ promise to “take back control”. For the Swiss, the British model offered a way to retain sovereignty while keeping the benefits of openness.
On the streets of Bern, conversations reflected this sentiment. “I voted no because the cap was a blunt instrument,” said Maria, a 34-year-old architect. “But I do think we need better management. Britain’s approach seems more thoughtful.” Her friend Klaus, a retired teacher, disagreed: “Britain is not a model for anything. They are still struggling with their own system. But at least they are trying something new.”
That trying something new is the human cost behind the policy. Immigration is not just about visas and points. It is about the family from Syria who run a bakery in Zurich, the Italian nurse in Basel, the Indian software developer in Lausanne. The referendum asked the Swiss to decide not just about numbers, but about the kind of society they want to be. They chose, for now, to remain open.
Yet the battle is not over. The Swiss People’s Party has vowed to return with a revised proposal. And across Europe, the shadow of Britain’s experiment looms large. In a world grappling with demographic decline, labour shortages and populist backlash, the British model is being dissected for lessons. Whether it can survive its own contradictions remains to be seen. But for one day, at least, the Swiss gave it a nod of approval.
Clara Whitby, Culture & Society Editor
