this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026

109 points (99.1% liked)

Europe

10354 readers

830 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
on Hungary: Euronews

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

federalreverse@feddit.org

poVoq@slrpnk.net

anzo@programming.dev

EuroMod@feddit.org

109

Switzerland to vote on far-right proposal to cap population at 10 million (lite.cnn.com)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Beep@lemmus.org to c/europe@feddit.org

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Keystone-SDA;
Bloomberg.

Switzerland is to hold a landmark vote on a right-wing party’s proposal to restrict the nation’s population to 10 million, amid divisions over immigration.

The proposal, put forward by the country’s largest political grouping the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), would require the government to act before the population – currently at 9.1 million – rises to the proposed 10 million upper limit.

If the vote, due to be held on June 14, is passed, the government would have to refuse entry to newcomers including asylum seekers and the families of foreign residents once the population reaches 9.5 million.

If the population hits 10 million, the government would be forced to end its free-movement agreement with the European Union (EU), which is Switzerland’s largest trading partner.

top 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] comrade_twisty@feddit.org 90 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Almost as stupid as Brexit.

Stupid right wing parties.

[–] jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 9 points 6 days ago

Am Swiss. Can confirm.

We can't limit our population growth without cancelling the contracts with the EU. And that would be would be literal (not figurative!) economic suicide. We literally (not figuratively) cannot survive without our European friends and partners.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 46 points 1 week ago

If this passes, that means they will have voted against taxing the rich but for this dumb shit.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Let's cap the population at ten million."
"Letting the government regulate the population is inefficient. Let's use a market-based approach instead. Each year we'll have a certain number of birth licenses and auction them off to the highest bidder."
"Birth licenses are too expensive. Let's let future parents take out loans for birth licenses in their future children's names. If you think about it, it's only fair."
"I was born with a $1 million debt I will never pay off."

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Oh no. I didn't even think about that, but yeah... that's entirely plausible. Why? NYC already went through that with taxi cab medallions.

[–] notsosure@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Damn, that would mean that if foreign millionaires want to get a resident visa, the Swiss would refuse them? Up to now the money grabbing yodelers didn’t object to any funds coming in, they even stole it from the nazi victims, the dirty b******s hehehe.

[–] jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 6 points 6 days ago

The rich would be above the law, of course. The SVP is like the GOP or the AfD: a few very rich people conning the dumbest 30% of the population into supporting their interests.

[–] Fokeu@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 days ago

They will just kick poor ones out or manipulate the population statistics

[–] B0rax@feddit.org 9 points 1 week ago

Clearly they will just throw some poor people out to make room for the „useful“ millionaires

[–] susi7802@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ah just cancel the economic agreement with them again, they’ll come crawling back begging for mercy.

[–] jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Don't underestimate the stubborness of the stupid. Just look at the UK. They'd rather be poor than admit they fucked up

[+] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They are right for the wrong reasons. Population control is necessary. The environment cannot handle infinite people.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

And yet affluent countries have birth rates below the 2.1 required for a steady population, meaning that in a generation’s time, the ratio between pensioners and productive workers will be a lot worse.

If the population is locked in to shrink in a few decades, a country will need immigration to stave off economic collapse. If Switzerland is concerned by large numbers of new immigrants arriving in a short timeframe and changing the culture, the sensible thing to do is to keep a slower, steady influx of immigrants coming in, assimilating and guiding the next ones in.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

If the population is locked in to shrink in a few decades, a country will need immigration to stave off economic collapse.

Eh. This is malarkey. Have you ever noticed how new technologies never seem to reduce the number of hours worked? Office computers and the internet didn't reduce the work week. They did free up time; the work simply expanded to fill the available hours. Things that were once taken care of with a one-page typewritten memo are now handled by 100 page reports with charts and graphics. Analyses became ever more complicated and elaborate. It's the bullshit jobs phenomenon.

And this is also why I don't worry at all about decreasing population. As labor becomes more scarce, companies will simply be forced to cut back on the amount of bullshit fluff work in their workflows. There is a ton of useless fluff built into the modern workplace. That waste is only possible because businesses have been used to having very cheap labor for a very long time. When markets force wages higher, companies are forced to become more efficient and to cut back on the number of bullshit jobs in the economy.

Realistically, we could produce all of the things we currently do even if we cut the labor force by 30%. Maybe we won't be able to hire as many vice presidents of social media marketing strategy. But we'll get along just fine.

[–] j4yc33@piefed.social 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Ok, just to speed this along: Any discussion that starts this way will eventually come to the questions:

Who do you want to remove from the populations?
Who do you want to prevent from having children?

If we just open the conversation with this question, we can find out what your real motivation is here.

[–] Pamasich@kbin.earth 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Iirc this vote is about neither. It's about not allowing further immigrants after that limit, not preventing births, nor culling.

Though it's not like I've properly informed myself properly on this yet. So, again, iirc.

[–] j4yc33@piefed.social 2 points 5 days ago

I think you're right, I was more replying to the comment at hand.

[–] Vinylraupe@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Dont forget: How do you want to remove these people?

I think the "Swiss dream" will wear off and the population growth will stagnate.

[–] j4yc33@piefed.social 2 points 5 days ago

You know, that's a good point that I did forget...

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Thank you! That's exactly what irks me about "overpopulation is the problem". Their path inevitably leads to genocide. I'll try anything to stop us from cooking the planet, but not that. It's morally wrong

[+] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Holy misconstrued reading, Batman!

How about I flip your argument like you did to me:

Are you proposing forced rape to impregnate women? That's what "population decline disaster" people end up wanting.

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

I'll believe you this isn't your intent, but this path will lead to nasty stuff down the line. As soon as we start saying there should be fewer people, that this is the solution, the question becomes "who has to go?".

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Lol, not even close. Also, yikes. Just quit while you're behind

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -3 points 6 days ago

So when I say that a declining population isn't a disaster I'm promoting genocide, but when you take the opposite position it's not forced birth for women?

Stop being a hypocrite. I didn't claim genocide just like you didn't claim rape.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

None! I didn't even hint at a forced population reduction.

In the developed world, fewer people are having children and those that do are having smaller families. That means instead of a worker supporting both his parents and children they only need to support their parents. When the parent dies there is now more land and resources so things like real estate gets cheaper. Fewer workers means each worker is more valuable and can demand more pay from the ownership class.

I have no fucking idea how stating this gets construed into meaning genocide.

(supporting doesn't necessarily mean direct support but through their job that helps everyone in society and taxes that go to schools and healthcare.)

[–] j4yc33@piefed.social 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Your response, combined with your original statement of

Population control is necessary

brings us to:

See question 2: which group of people do you want to tell aren't allowed to have kids?

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

A woman's right to birth control isn't forcing anyone.

There are many things that are necessary but that doesn't mean forcing people.

[–] j4yc33@piefed.social 2 points 6 days ago

Clever to try and make this about a woman's right to use birth control (which also implies the corollary of a woman's right to not use it.), but your assertion is that the population control is necessary.

Controlling things means making people comply when they don't.

Also, what's you're goal here: To have people just decide to choose not to have kids? In your mind what people should choose not to have kids? What happens when people choose to have kids anyway?

Which is, you know, how biology and biological systems work. As long as people exist: they're gonna fuck. When they fuck, there are gonna be kids.