On 27 September 2020, Swiss voters rejected, by 61.7%, the SVP popular initiative « For moderate immigration », known as the « limitation initiative ». The text required Switzerland to manage immigration autonomously and, concretely, that the Federal Council terminate within one year the agreement on the free movement of persons (AFMP) concluded with the European Union.
The initiative was part of the SVP's long battle over immigration, after the 2014 acceptance of the « against mass immigration » initiative, whose implementation by Parliament had disappointed its authors. This time the aim was to enshrine in the Constitution a strictly autonomous management of immigration and to ban the conclusion of any new treaty granting free movement.
The central issue was the « guillotine clause »: terminating the AFMP would, within six months, void the six other Bilateral I agreements (technical barriers to trade, air transport, land transport, agriculture, research, public procurement). The entire Bilateral I structure, in force since 2002, was therefore at stake.
On 27 September 2020, the no prevailed widely with 61.7% of the vote, on a turnout of 59.49%. The initiative was accepted only by Schwyz, Glarus, Ticino and Appenzell Inner-Rhodes; all other cantons rejected it.
▲ Cantons that accepted Schwyz, Glarus, Ticino and Appenzell Inner-Rhodes — equivalent to about 3.5 of 23 cantonal votes. | ▼ Cantons that rejected All other cantons, with the clearest no votes in Basel-City (74.6% no), Neuchâtel (71.1%), Vaud (70.9%), Geneva (69%), Jura (68.2%), Fribourg (64.6%), Valais (62.1%) and Bern (61.4%). |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • SVP (initiating party, sponsor of the text) • AUNS (Action for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland) • Committee « Yes to the limitation initiative » (sovereigntist circles) | ▼ No camp • Federal Council (with Karin Keller-Sutter leading the campaign) • FDP, The Centre / CVP, SP, Greens, Green Liberals (united front of the other parties) • Economiesuisse, Employers' Association (business circles) • SGB and trade unions (concern for the accompanying measures) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Immigration is too high and must be curbed « Free movement causes uncontrolled immigration; Switzerland must decide for itself who enters its territory. » — SVP, 2020 campaign ✓~ Partly confirmed Net immigration did indeed remain strong: the resident population passed the 9 million mark in 2023, and the debate on demographic growth did not subside — to the point that the SVP relaunched a « sustainability » initiative against a 10-million Switzerland. The observation of high immigration was thus borne out, but without the control demanded. Source: Federal Statistical Office, population statistics 2020-2024. Only terminating the AFMP restores control « As long as free movement remains, Switzerland can never steer its immigration. » — SVP, 2020 campaign ✗~ Partly refuted The idea that controlling immigration necessarily requires terminating the AFMP was later qualified: the Bilateral III negotiations, concluded at the end of 2024, provide for a safeguard clause allowing immigration to be limited under certain conditions, without terminating the agreement. Source: FDFA, Bilateral III package 2024; Federal Council communiqués. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) The guillotine clause would topple all of Bilateral I « Terminating free movement means collapsing the whole set of bilateral agreements linked to it. » — Federal Council, 2020 ✓ Argument confirmed The legal link of the guillotine clause is a documented reality of Bilateral I. By rejecting the initiative, the people preserved the entire package, which remained fully in force after the vote. Source: FDFA; texts of the Bilateral Agreements I. Rejection will consolidate the bilateral path « Saying no confirms the bilateral path and allows talks with the EU to continue. » — Federal Council / Economiesuisse, 2020 ✓ Argument confirmed The bilateral path was indeed preserved and then deepened: after the framework agreement collapsed in 2021, Switzerland and the EU concluded a new package of agreements (Bilateral III) at the end of 2024. Source: FDFA, chronology of Switzerland-EU relations 2020-2024. |
Factual record
2 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ✓ | The bilateral path preserved The rejection kept Bilateral I intact. After the framework agreement collapsed in 2021, Bern and Brussels negotiated a new package, Bilateral III, whose conclusion was announced at the end of 2024. Source: FDFA, 2020-2024. |
| ~ | Immigration did not slow The demographic engine of free movement kept turning: Switzerland passed 9 million inhabitants in 2023, fuelling a new debate — and new initiatives — on population growth. Source: Federal Statistical Office, 2023-2024. |
| ✓ | A safeguard clause rather than a rupture Rather than the termination advocated by the initiative, a negotiated safeguard clause, embedded in Bilateral III, was adopted to frame immigration — a middle way assumed by the Federal Council. Source: FDFA, Bilateral III package 2024. |
On 27 September 2020, the SVP suffered one of its clearest setbacks on its favourite terrain. Isolated against a front uniting all the other parties and all the business circles, the limitation initiative was swept aside by nearly two thirds of voters.
In hindsight, the no camp's decisive argument — the guillotine clause's threat to the whole of Bilateral I — was legally sound, and the rejection did preserve and then prolong the bilateral path, up to the 2024 Bilateral III package.
The yes camp was not entirely wrong on substance, however: immigration remained strong and Switzerland passed 9 million inhabitants. But the chosen response was not the rupture the SVP advocated; a negotiated safeguard clause prevailed — vindicating the bilateral method more than the termination strategy.