On 5 June 2005, Swiss voters approved with 54.6 % the federal decree endorsing the Schengen and Dublin agreements with the European Union. Turnout reached 56.6 %, a high level for a federal vote. The decree opened the way for Switzerland's association with the European area without systematic identity checks at internal borders (Schengen) and with the asylum-distribution system (Dublin).
The campaign was one of the most intense of the decade. The Federal Council, internally split (4 to 3, with councillors Merz, Schmid and Blocher opposed), ultimately defended a yes under the leadership of Micheline Calmy-Rey (FDFA). The SVP, AUNS and several conservative circles launched a referendum and then ran an opposition campaign focused on security, sovereignty and migration risk.
Schengen operational entry into force took place on 12 December 2008 (29 March 2009 at airports); the Dublin regulation has applied in Switzerland since the same date. This fact sheet compares the key arguments of the 2005 campaign with the facts documented since entry into force.
▲ Cantons that accepted Zurich, Bern, Zug, Fribourg, Solothurn, Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, Geneva, Jura | ▼ Cantons that rejected Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Obwalden, Nidwalden, Glarus, Schaffhausen, Appenzell Outer Rhodes, Appenzell Inner Rhodes, St. Gallen, Graubünden, Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Federal Council (4/3 majority) (campaign led by Micheline Calmy-Rey, FDFA) • Micheline Calmy-Rey (SP federal councillor, head of the yes campaign) • SP, FDP, The Centre, Greens (governing and ecological parties) • economiesuisse, sgv-usam (business associations and trades sector) • hotelleriesuisse, Swiss Tourism Federation (tourism sector) • Border cantons (GE, BS, TI campaigned particularly strongly for yes) | ▼ No camp • SVP (main referendum party) • Christoph Blocher (SVP federal councillor opposed within the collegiate body) • Hans-Rudolf Merz, Samuel Schmid (FDP and SVP federal councillors opposed within the college) • AUNS (Campaign for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland) • Swiss Democrats, Lega dei Ticinesi (national-conservative parties) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Federal Council, governing parties, business) Strengthened security through SIS access « Schengen does not mean opening the borders to criminals — on the contrary, access to the Schengen Information System will strengthen security. » — Micheline Calmy-Rey, 2005 campaign ✓ ✓ Argument confirmed Since Switzerland's connection to SIS in August 2008, fedpol has documented several thousand actionable alerts. According to the FDJP, around 6,000 wanted persons were identified in Switzerland through SIS in the first years of application, including dozens of particularly dangerous criminals. The second Schengen evaluation of Switzerland (2014) produced a positive assessment by European authorities. Source : FDJP, press release of 18 November 2014; fedpol, SIS reports Better asylum management via Dublin « Dublin will allow each asylum application to be processed in a single Schengen state and prevent multiple applications. » — Federal Council, 2005 explanatory booklet ✓ ✓ Argument confirmed The Dublin regulation took effect in Switzerland on 12 December 2008. The SEM systematically initiates the Dublin procedure, and Switzerland is among the countries that use the instrument most intensively at European level. The rate of actually executed transfers, however, remains lower than the rate of requests — a finding acknowledged by federal authorities but criticised by aid NGOs. Source : State Secretariat for Migration (SEM), annual asylum statistics; OSAR, Dublin reports No dismantling of customs controls « Schengen does not touch the customs union: goods will continue to be checked at border posts. » — Federal Council, 2005 explanatory booklet ✓ ✓ Argument confirmed The Federal Customs Administration (now FOCBS / BAZG) has fully maintained its goods-control duties. As Switzerland is not part of the EU customs union, customs checks at the borders remain in place to this day, as the Federal Council and business circles had announced during the campaign. Source : FOCBS / BAZG, missions and statistics; official Schengen-Dublin documentation | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (SVP, AUNS, conservative circles) Loss of sovereignty and adoption of EU law « With Schengen, Switzerland will have to adopt developments of the acquis that it has not decided. That is a net loss of sovereignty. » — SVP, 2005 campaign brochure ✓~ ✓~ Partly confirmed Switzerland has indeed adopted several hundred developments of the Schengen-Dublin acquis since 2008, most often with no real negotiating room. Parliament may refuse an adoption, but this would jeopardise the agreements (guillotine clause). In 2019, the revision of Swiss firearms law to align with the EU directive illustrated this mechanism, being itself put to a referendum. The structural argument is therefore factually verified, even though Switzerland retained its democratic procedures. Source : FDFA-EAER, overview of Schengen adoptions; vote of 19 May 2019 on the firearms law More Schengen, more crime « Schengen opens the door to European organised crime, itinerant burglars and cross-border delinquency. » — SVP, 2005 campaign address ✗~ ✗~ Partly refuted Confederation statistics do not confirm an explosion of crime directly attributable to Schengen. Several cantonal police reports note itinerant gangs, but cooperation through SIS and European arrest warrants has also improved suspect identification. The Police Crime Statistics have shown cyclical rises and falls since 2008, with no clear break attributable to Schengen. Source : FSO / fedpol, Police Crime Statistics; annual reports of the Conference of Cantonal Police Commanders (KKPKS) Switzerland will become the asylum country par excellence « With Dublin, Switzerland will find itself at the heart of the system and will have to take in tens of thousands of additional applicants. » — No camp, 2005 campaign ✗ ✗ Argument refuted The effect was the opposite: Dublin allows Switzerland to send back a significant number of asylum seekers each year to the first Schengen country of entry. The SEM reports several thousand non-entry decisions per year. Switzerland requests more take-charges from its partners than it accepts itself. The net balance has worked in Switzerland's favour since the regulation entered into force. Source : State Secretariat for Migration, asylum statistics (annual publications) |
Factual record
3 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 1 Refuted |
| ✓ | Security: SIS delivered what was promised The Schengen Information System has clearly strengthened Switzerland's police cooperation: identification of wanted persons, use of European arrest warrants, real-time alerts. Successive Schengen evaluations of Switzerland have produced a positive technical assessment. Source : FDJP, Schengen evaluations 2008 and 2014; fedpol |
| ✓ | Dublin: a useful instrument for Switzerland Contrary to opponents' fears, Dublin has structurally benefited Switzerland, which requests more transfers than it accepts — even though actual execution of these transfers remains limited by deadlines and refusals by requested states. Source : Annual SEM statistics; Avenir Suisse, Schengen-Dublin analyses |
| ~ | Sovereignty: the SVP critique was not unfounded Switzerland has indeed had to adopt dozens of Schengen acquis developments since 2008, sometimes with no real leeway. The guillotine clause weighs on every parliamentary vote. The criticism over loss of decision-making margin has materialised, without however threatening the agreements. Source : FDFA; successive parliamentary debates; vote of 19 May 2019 |
| ✓ | Economy and tourism: overall positive impact The tourism sector and border regions (Geneva, Basel, Ticino) benefited from the removal of systematic identity checks, especially for non-European visitors holding a single Schengen visa. No significant economic cost attributable to Schengen has been documented since 2008. Source : Swiss Tourism Federation; SECO, sectoral reports; Avenir Suisse studies |
The federal decree of 5 June 2005 on Schengen-Dublin belongs to the short list of major European decisions of modern Switzerland. Nearly twenty years later, the promises of the yes camp have been kept on the essentials: operational SIS access, strengthened police cooperation, active use of Dublin by Switzerland, maintained customs controls and a favourable tourism record.
The no camp's fears have, on the whole, not materialised in the security or migration field — Dublin even structurally benefits Switzerland. One criticism nevertheless remains partly valid: the quasi-automatic adoption of the Schengen-Dublin acquis, under threat of the guillotine clause, is a fact regularly debated in Parliament, of which the 2019 vote on firearms law was a concrete illustration.
Overall, the factual record validates the direction chosen by the people: Schengen-Dublin has integrated into the Swiss institutional set-up without rupture, while imposing a permanent — sometimes uncomfortable — dialogue with Brussels.