Federal popular initiative "Against mass immigration"

The federal popular initiative “Against mass immigration” was a popular initiative of the Swiss People's Party (SVP). It instructs the legislature to limit the immigration of foreigners to Switzerland by means of maximum annual numbers and quotas based on Switzerland's macroeconomic interests. It also calls for changes to the contradicting international treaties, namely the bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the EU , which provide for the free movement of persons .

Of the parties represented in the federal parliament, the initiative was only supported by the SVP. It was recommended for rejection by the CVP , BDP , FDP , GLP , EPP , SP and the Greens as well as the National Council (with 140 to 54 votes), the Council of States (37 to 5) and the Federal Council .

On February 9, 2014 the people and the cantons accepted the initiative. With an above-average participation in the vote of 56.6 percent, the request achieved a popular majority of 50.3 percent and a cantonal majority of 12 ⁵ ⁄ ₂ stands.

The Federal Assembly implemented the initiative in December 2016 through a change in the law, which stipulates that companies are obliged to report and interview jobs in favor of domestic employees, but waived the maximum numbers and quotas required by the initiative.

About the context, origin of the initiative

In 1980, 14.1% of the people living in Switzerland were foreigners, in 1990 it was 16.4%, in 2000 19.3%, 2010 21.9% and 2013 23.2%. The average annual growth from 1980 to 2013 was just under 1.7 percent.

The SVP launched the initiative in July 2011 about three months before the Swiss parliamentary elections in 2011 and put their election campaign under the theme of “Stop mass immigration!”. According to party president Toni Brunner , 120,000 signatures had been collected by October 2011, more than the 100,000 required.

On February 14, 2012, the initiative was submitted to the Federal Chancellery with 136,195 certified signatures . Around 110,000 signatures came from the German-speaking Switzerland , 21,500 from the Romandie and 4800 from the Ticino .

In 2017, a legal epilogue regarding suspected hate speech ended with a guilty verdict for well-known SVP members. The Federal Supreme Court ruled that a poster placed during the collection of signatures, on which "Kosovars slit Swiss people" could be read, constituted discrimination .

Arguments

Share of foreign-born in the resident population in OECD countries. Blue: average, orange: Switzerland

Favorable arguments

The SVP justified the initiative as follows:

• Switzerland has lost control of immigration after it had generously but controlled foreigners in earlier years. There are currently no effective instruments to control and limit immigration. The uncontrolled influx from the EU, the open borders and delayed problems in the asylum system are primarily responsible for this.
• Unchecked immigration has negative consequences that are becoming more and more obvious. Switzerland must therefore be able to control and limit immigration itself again.
• The net immigration of the last five years corresponds to the population of the city of Zurich . In sixty years, despite generous naturalization, the proportion of foreigners has almost quadrupled: from 5.9% (1950) to 22% (2010). The Federal Office for Migration expects a resident population of up to ten million people in 2035.
• Unchecked immigration has, among other things, the following effects:

• The streets and trains are overcrowded; Rents and land prices exploded.
• Immigrants from the EU displaced workers from third countries, who in turn did not return to their home countries and placed a burden on Swiss social security institutions.
• Wages came under pressure.
• Asylum abuse and foreign crime increased.

Negative arguments

A committee made up of politicians from the CVP, BDP, FDP, GLP, Greens and EPP parties was founded against the initiative. Some of the arguments put forward were:

• The initiative violates the agreement on the free movement of persons with the EU and would therefore lead to the termination of the entire Bilateral Agreements I , as they are linked to one another via a guillotine clause . A renegotiation of the agreements has very little chance because the initiative is incompatible with EU legal principles and the initiative only allows three years for negotiations. Switzerland would also have to make extensive concessions to the EU in other areas in renegotiations.
• The initiative exacerbates the shortage of skilled workers in Switzerland. The economy is urgently dependent on immigration. Thanks to the free movement of people, the shortage of workers could easily be recruited in EU countries.
• The initiative creates a bureaucracy monster . The required quota system is unnecessary, bureaucratic and costly. For the economy this represents a painful additional burden. In addition, there is no guarantee that those people will come to Switzerland who need the domestic world of work.

Opinions

• The Green Party of the Canton of Ticino , i Verdi del Ticino , endorsed the initiative. The free movement of persons leads to untenable conditions on the labor market and to a "war among the poor" to the benefit of employers. A return to the provisions before the introduction of the free movement of persons is not xenophobic.
• The economic umbrella organization Economiesuisse rejected the initiative because it would jeopardize the bilateral agreements with the EU and thus damage Switzerland as a business location. It also endangers prosperity and jobs, since every third franc is earned from trade with the EU.
• The Presidents of the Rectors' Conferences of the Swiss Universities , the Universities of Applied Sciences, the Universities of Education and the Swiss Academies of Sciences and the President of the Research Council of the Swiss National Science Foundation described the free movement of persons with the EU as the "royal road for Switzerland to excellent education and research".

Initiative text

I
The Federal Constitution is amended as follows:

Art. 121 Subject heading (new)
Legislation in the area of ​​foreigners and asylum

Art. 121a (new) Control of immigration
¹ Switzerland controls the immigration of foreigners independently.
² The number of permits for foreign nationals to stay in Switzerland is limited by annual maximum numbers and quotas. The maximum number applies to all permits under the law on aliens, including the asylum system. The right to permanent residence, family reunification and social benefits can be limited.
³ The annual maximum numbers and quotas for employed foreign nationals are to be based on the general economic interests of Switzerland, taking priority into account for Swiss nationals; the cross-border commuters are to be included. The decisive criteria for the issue of residence permits are in particular the application by an employer, the ability to integrate and a sufficient, independent livelihood.
⁴ No international treaties may be concluded that violate this article.
⁵ The law regulates the details.

II
The transitional provisions of the Federal Constitution are changed as follows:

Art. 197 no. 9 (new)
9. Transitional provision to Art. 121a (control of immigration)
¹ International treaties that contradict Article 121a are to be renegotiated and adapted within three years of its acceptance by the people and the cantons.
² If the implementing legislation for Article 121a has not yet come into force three years after its adoption by the people and the cantons, the Federal Council shall issue the implementing provisions temporarily by ordinance at this point in time.

poll

The initiative was accepted on February 9, 2014 by 50.3 percent of the voters and with a majority of 12  ⁵ ⁄ ₂  : 8  ¹ ⁄ ₂ .

While the majority of German-speaking cantons except Basel-Stadt , Zurich and Zug accepted the initiative, the French-speaking cantons rejected it. The initiative received the highest approval in Ticino . The turnout was above average at 56.6 percent.

Results by canton

Yes (12 ⁵ / ₂ Scores)

No (8 ¹ / ₂ Scores)

Mass Immigration Initiative - Preliminary Official Final Results

Canton	Yes (%)	No (%)	Participation (%)
Aargau	55.2	44.8	55.2
Appenzell Ausserrhoden	54.4	45.6	57.7
Appenzell Innerrhoden	63.5	36.5	52.3
Basel-Country	50.6	49.4	55.0
Basel city	39.0	61.0	56.5
Bern	51.1	48.9	54.1
Freiburg	48.5	51.5	56.0
Geneva	39.1	60.9	57.4
Glarus	59.4	40.6	50.9
Grisons	50.6	49.4	52.2
law	44.1	55.9	51.4
Lucerne	53.3	46.7	57.7
Neuchâtel	39.3	60.7	55.4
Nidwalden	58.8	41.2	60.3
Obwalden	59.1	40.9	60.3
Schaffhausen	58.1	41.9	70.5
Schwyz	63.1	36.9	60.8
Solothurn	54.6	45.4	55.4
St. Gallen	55.9	44.1	55.5
Ticino	68.2	31.8	57.0
Thurgau	57.8	42.2	53.3
Uri	58.2	41.8	49.7
Vaud	38.9	61.1	58.0
Valais	48.3	51.7	61.5
train	49.9	50.1	61.1
Zurich	47.3	52.7	57.7
Swiss Confederation	50.3	49.7	55.8

Reactions

Domestic reactions

The evening after the vote, there were demonstrations against the result in various Swiss cities; there was isolated damage to property.

The president of the employers' association, Valentin Vogt, hoped “that we will somehow come to an agreement” with the EU. The Swiss Bankers Association announced that it was “to be feared that the available pool of workers will now become smaller”.

According to a report in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung , Swiss economists do not expect any immediately noticeable economic damage. In the long term, however, the growth potential of the Swiss economy will decrease slightly. Credit Suisse economists anticipated a decline in economic growth from 1.9% to around 1.6%.

The former trade diplomat Luzius Wasescha counted on ten years of negotiations before new contracts with the EU are negotiated, since every result has to be supported by all member states; In view of the “growing EU criticism”, the EU could show “no flexibility” towards Switzerland; Whenever there is a deviation from the basic principles, Switzerland would be told: "Sorry, we cannot accept that."

The already negotiated agreement on the free movement of persons with the new EU member Croatia was not signed by Switzerland because, according to Justice Minister Sommaruga, a new constitutional provision is directly applicable.

After the EU suspended negotiations on the research framework program “ Horizon 2020 ” in response to this failure to sign , the presidents of the universities and academies of science wrote in a letter to the Federal Council that non-association with the programs would increase “confidence in the research center to shake sustainably ». ETH President Ralph Eichler said that if Switzerland could no longer take part in the EU research framework programs, it would be “like if FC Basel could no longer play in the Champions League”. The Association of Swiss Student Unions was “shocked” by the end of “Horizon 2020” and “ Erasmus + ”. This means "an enormous step backwards, which will severely shake the quality of our education and our research opportunities". This also puts Switzerland's leadership and innovation role at stake.

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung brought up the following possible procedures: "The repetition of the vote, the non-implementation of the initiative as with maternity insurance , a plebiscite over bilateralism or the confrontation strategy with the immediate introduction of contingents." In terms of content, the NZZ saw no possible negotiated solutions.

Yves Rossier , State Secretary in the Department of Foreign Affairs , said that the first question that had to be answered was whether the implementation of the initiative was compatible with the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons. If that did not work and the agreement on the free movement of persons could not be renegotiated, it would be questionable which regulation would then apply “to reduce damage” and what would become of the other agreements. There is a possibility that all bilateral agreements will fall.

At a rally “for an open and solidary Switzerland”, to which an alliance of almost 60 parties, trade unions and organizations, including several foreigners associations, had called, on March 1, 2014, around 12,000 participants gathered on the Bundesplatz in Bern .

Representative of the European Union

The European Commission announced that the vote violated "the principle of free movement of persons between the European Union and Switzerland". Commission President José Manuel Barroso said that Switzerland could not enjoy all the advantages of the world's largest market without granting free access to EU citizens in return, and that it would not be right for Swiss citizens to enjoy unrestricted freedom of movement in the European Union, but Switzerland Introduce quotas for EU citizens; Swiss citizens could lose the right to live and work in the EU.

The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok , announced that “one cannot unilaterally remove one of the four principles of the internal market ”; it should not be the case that “ cherry picking ” prevails here. The President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz agreed with Brok and said: "Enjoying the advantages, but closing the doors yourself - that is not possible."

The German member of the European Parliament Andreas Schwab ( EPP ) stated that he respected the referendum and would campaign for the free movement of persons agreement to be terminated and the guillotine clause activated. The German member of the European Parliament Sven Giegold ( Greens / EFA ) called on the European Union and the German Federal Government to make counterclaims on the subjects of “ banking secrecy ” and “Swiss tax dumping ” when the agreements with Switzerland are renegotiated . The German Member of the European Parliament Alexander Graf Lambsdorff ( ALDE ) warned of rash consequences against Switzerland and urged to respect the result. However, he also made it clear that there would be no separation of the four fundamental freedoms . The British MEP Nigel Farage ( EFD ) said that “a wise and strong Switzerland has risen against the harassment and threats of the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels”.

After Switzerland did not sign the already negotiated free movement of persons agreement with the new EU member Croatia in implementation of the constitutional amendment, the EU suspended negotiations on the eighth research framework agreement “Horizon 2020” and the educational exchange program “ Erasmus + ” until further notice. EU Social Commissioner László Andor said in the European Parliament on February 26th that this would not be a punitive action by the EU, but the consequence, known before the vote, if Switzerland could not sign the additional protocol to extend the free movement of persons to Croatia. Switzerland would now definitely no longer be able to participate in the programs for 2014 under the conditions set before the vote.

Andor also affirmed that the free movement of persons is non-negotiable for the EU, that Brussels expects Switzerland to comply with the bilateral agreements and that selective application or “cherry-picking” are not options. He also emphasized that the EU was waiting for the implementation proposals from the Swiss government.

Politicians, parties and organizations abroad

The French Minister of Economic Affairs Arnaud Montebourg described the vote as "ruining Switzerland" and threatened France with a trade barrier. The French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called the vote "worrying" and announced that France would "review relations with Switzerland". On the occasion of the visit of the Swiss Federal President Didier Burkhalter to Berlin, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she regretted the decision, but the will of the sovereign should be respected. It is important to ensure that the already intensive relations between Switzerland and the EU remain as intensive as possible. Merkel also recalled that Germany, too, suspended the provisions on the free movement of persons for years after the accession of the East Central European states, and she emphasized that there would initially be a quota regulation in the case of Croatia as well. The co-chairman of the German party Die Linke Bernd Riexinger called for the introduction of capital controls , because “if Switzerland closes its border to people”, it is “only fair if the money stays out”. The Austrian FPÖ National Councilor Heinz-Christian Strache called for such a vote in Austria. The Liechtenstein Deputy Prime Minister Thomas Zwiefelhofer feared negative effects on Liechtenstein.

The result of the vote was welcomed by the National Democratic Party of Germany , the UK Independence Party and the Front National . The British Minister of State, David Lidington , expressed understanding for the decision and announced that Britain would do more to combat social tourism . There is “no right to move away just to gain access to social benefits and public services”.

The spokesman for the German party Alternative for Germany at the time, Bernd Lucke , demanded that Germany should take Switzerland as an example and also hold referendums on the subject of immigration; Referendums would show where politics ignored problems.

The Swiss economist Thomas Straubhaar , head of the Hamburg World Economic Institute, said that “if the EU Commission cancels the bilateral agreements”, this would have “serious consequences for the economy”.

Voting analysis

According to an analysis by the Berner Zeitung , a change of opinion in the large agglomerations led to the initiative being accepted. The declaration made immediately after the vote that rural Switzerland with its comparatively small proportion of foreigners caused the assumption does not go far enough. In its analysis, the Berner Zeitung compares the voting results with previous European policy decisions. Since the package of bilateral agreements presented by the Federal Council on May 21, 2000 and approved by the sovereign with a clear majority, the majority ratios in five further European policy votes have remained essentially stable. However, this has changed significantly with the initiative. A total of about 680,000 more people went to the polls than in 2000. Despite this turnout, which was a third higher, the pro-European camp decreased by 50,000, while the anti-European camp increased by 730,000. The no to the free movement of persons has spread across the board, but has increased above average in the previously Europe-friendly metropolitan areas. In particular in the urbanized communities of the Central Plateau , there was a decisive increase of 530,000 votes. In an article in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung , Peter Moser, Deputy Head of the Zurich Statistics Office, pointed out that the rejection of freedom of movement had primarily increased where the consequences of immigration were subjectively perceived as particularly acute, i.e. H. in the agglomeration areas .

implementation

Modification of existing and conclusion of new international treaties

The new constitutional provisions adopted in the referendum on February 8, 2014 required the start of negotiations with the EU on an amendment to the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons (FZA) with the aim of introducing maximum numbers and quotas for residence permits for EU nationals within a maximum of three years. The Federal Council passed its negotiating mandate on February 11, 2015. Two goals should be pursued: On the one hand, the FZA should be adapted so that Switzerland will in future be able to independently control and limit immigration. On the other hand, the bilateral path should be secured. The agreement of both negotiating partners is a prerequisite for the success of negotiations. The EU, of course not bound by the Swiss constitutional text, was not prepared to enter into such negotiations. The new constitutional provisions did not contain any regulation on how to proceed in this case, in particular there was no binding mandate to terminate the FZA (unlike in the text of the later “ limitation initiative ”).

According to the new Article 121a BV, no new international treaties may be concluded that contradict this provision. Due to this provision, the Federal Council has not been able to sign the “Protocol”, which has already been finally negotiated with the EU and is an international treaty, on the expansion of the FZA to Croatia. In a dispatch dated March 4, 2016, the Federal Council requested the Federal Assembly to approve this protocol. He justified this with the fact that the EU was not ready for negotiations, but for «consultations in which it should be sounded out whether there is a way that is feasible for both sides to implement the constitutional mandate of Article 121a BV while at the same time maintaining the bilateral path. » The Federal Councils approved the protocol on June 16, 2016 with the proviso that the Federal Council may only ratify the protocol "if there is a regulation with the European Union to control immigration that is compatible with Swiss law." On December 16, 2016, the Federal Council came to the conclusion that this condition was met with the adoption of the implementing legislation for Art. 121a BV (see below) and decided to ratify the protocol.

Implementing legislation

After lengthy preparatory work (consultations with all interested parties about a preliminary draft, waiting for developments in the EU, especially in connection with Brexit ), the Federal Council submitted its draft on March 4, 2016 for implementing the “mass immigration initiative”. Because no agreement could be reached with the EU by this point in time, he suggested controlling immigration by means of unilateral protective clauses: If a certain threshold is exceeded, the Federal Council must set annual maximum numbers. In the parliamentary deliberations this proposal was not approved because it contradicted the FZA with the EU. On December 16, 2016, after deliberations that were unusually emotional for Swiss conditions, the federal councils agreed on a so-called “domestic priority light”: The demand for foreign workers was to be throttled by giving domestic job seekers in occupational groups with particularly high unemployment a kind of head start. They should have exclusive access to the advertisements that are reported to the employment offices for a certain period of time.

This solution was compatible with the FZA, but dispensed with the maximum numbers and quotas required by the constitution. In his parliamentary group declaration before the final vote in the National Council, Adrian Amstutz , parliamentary group president of the SVP , stated : "With the failure to implement the mandate decided by the people and the cantons of independent control of immigration, Parliament is committing a uniquely bold breach of the constitution." Ignazio Cassis , President of the FDP-Liberals parliamentary group, replied: “All articles in the constitution are the same, equally important, regardless of the date they were added to the constitution. Il n'y a pas de hiérarchy. Article 121a is no more important than, for example, Article 5, which defines the principles of the rule of law. In paragraph 4 one reads there: Confederation and cantons observe international law. We did that. The bilaterals are international law, and the agreement on the free movement of persons is part of the bilaterals. "

Subsequently, the SVP refrained from holding a referendum against the revision of the law and thus enabling a referendum. If the law had been rejected in a referendum, the Federal Council would have had to implement the constitutional amendment by means of an ordinance, as in Article 197, paragraph 11, paragraph 2 BV (see above, paragraph 9 of the initiative text was renumbered in paragraph 11 after the initiative was adopted) calls. Looking at the wording of this article in isolation, however, he would have been obliged to do so even after the law had been adopted by parliament or by the people, which would, however, not be compatible with his constitutional position vis-à-vis the higher-ranking state bodies parliament and the people.

Constitutional amendment

On October 27, 2015, the popular initiative “Get out of the cul-de-sac! Renouncement of the reintroduction of immigration quotas »(unofficially named as the RASA initiative) submitted with the necessary signatures. She called for the constitutional provisions adopted on February 9, 2014 to be repealed without replacement. The Federal Council commented on this in its dispatch of April 26, 2017. The initiative would have offered the opportunity to resolve the contradiction between the constitutional text on the one hand and the obligations under international law and the legislative changes of December 16, 2016 on the other. However, the Federal Council rejected the initiative because, in its opinion, immigration should continue to be controlled and limited with suitable measures. There are also reasons for democratic politics against reversing the decision of the people and the cantons of February 9, 2014 after such a short time. On December 21, 2016, the Federal Council put up for discussion a counter-draft to the initiative with its own proposal for a constitutional amendment. After this proposal was not met with sufficient approval, he decided against it. The Federal Councilors followed the Federal Council. After recommending the initiative for rejection without a counter-proposal, the initiators withdrew it.

For its part, the SVP attempted to lift the contradiction between the Federal Constitution and the FZA by launching a new constitutional initiative, which this time, in contrast to the “mass immigration initiative”, expressly demands the termination of the FZA if negotiations with the EU do not lead to success in due time (see limitation initiative ).

See also

• Optional referendum (2009) on the continuation of the free movement of persons and its extension to Romania and Bulgaria
• Demography of Switzerland
• List of migration groups in Switzerland

Web links

• Federal popular initiative “Against mass immigration” on the Federal Chancellery website
• Initiative Committee website
• Adversary Committee website
• "A sampling of excerpted reactions and analyzes" to the "Feb. 9, 2014 immigration vote" (English)
• Topic page of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on the initiative and further developments

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Voting slogans of the parties represented in parliament and of associations ( Memento of the original from February 22, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . parliament.ch , accessed on February 12, 2014 
2. ^ Federal Assembly: Aliens Act. Controlling immigration and improving the implementation of the agreements on the free movement of persons , transaction no.16.027, adopted text (PDF)
3. ↑ State Secretariat for Migration , quoted after victory in fear of foreign infiltration . In: FAZ , February 10, 2014, p. 2:
4. ↑ Beni Gafner: "People stood in line to sign" . In: Der Bund , October 17, 2011
5. ↑ ^{a b} Initiative “against mass immigration” is available in Neue Zürcher Zeitung , accessed on February 14, 2012
6. ^ The SVP's Schlitzer poster is racist . St. Galler Tagblatt. April 13, 2017. Retrieved May 17, 2017.
7. ^ Argumentarium for the popular initiative "against mass immigration ( Memento from October 5, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF, 1.1 MB), as of July 2011, accessed on masseneinwanderung.ch on October 17, 2011, p. 3
8. ↑ Sebastian Heselhaus, Julia Hänni: Legal opinion on the question of the compatibility of the federal popular initiative "Against mass immigration" (immigration initiative) with the agreement between the Swiss Confederation, on the one hand, and the European Community and its member states, on the other hand, on freedom of movement (agreement on freedom of movement) ( memento of the original from 24 September 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF, 178 kB) 
9. ↑ Legal opinion shows: Immigration initiative is leading Switzerland to a dead end, ( Memento of the original from October 12, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The  archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Media release by the FDP Liberals of October 10, 2011
10. ^ Election recommendation of the Green Party of the Canton of Ticino ( Memento of October 8, 2014 in the Internet Archive ), accessed on February 28, 2014.
11. ↑ Economy rejects SVP initiative unanimously . ( Memento of the original from November 12, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 35 kB) Economiesuisse , media release of February 14, 2012 
12. ↑ Manifesto for an Open Research Area. ( Memento of the original from March 3, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. In: Appenzeller Zeitung Online. January 20, 2014, accessed February 24, 2014. 
13. ^ Franziska Meister: Research in Switzerland: Why don't the scientists fight back? In: Die Wochenzeitung , No. 04/2014, January 23, 2014; accessed on February 24, 2014.
14. ↑ Preliminary official final results
15. ↑ Popular initiative of February 14, 2012 'Against mass immigration' . Federal Chancellery , accessed on February 10, 2014 . 
16. ↑ «Voting result drives hundreds out into the streets» . Tages-Anzeiger , February 9, 2014.
17. ↑ ^{a b} Limitation of immigration: Swiss shock their economy . Spiegel Online , February 10, 2014.
18. ↑ Referendum: The Swiss tremble before the bankers flee . Welt Online , February 12, 2014.
19. ↑ Skid marks, but no crash. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung . Retrieved February 10, 2014 . 
20. ↑ «It takes ten years to negotiate new contracts» . Berner Zeitung , February 10, 2014.
21. ↑ ^{a b} “Horizon 2020” put on hold , Neue Zürcher Zeitung of February 16, 2014, accessed on February 24, 2014.
22. ↑ SVP initiative harms research facility: “Like FC Basel without the Champions League” , Neue Zürcher Zeitung of February 19, 2014, accessed on February 24, 2014.
23. ↑ Immigration initiative and the consequences: Students “shocked” about stop for Erasmus , Neue Zürcher Zeitung of February 26, 2014, accessed on February 27, 2014.
24. ^ Simon Gemperli: Swiss European Policy after the SVP Initiative , February 21, 2014
25. ↑ «Switzerland is not the first topic in the EU» , interview with Thomas Wehrli and Dominik Feusi in the Basler Zeitung on February 28th
26. ↑ Demonstration for open country: “We are the 49.7 percent” , NZZ online from March 2, 2014, accessed on March 4, 2014.
27. ↑ Reactions to the Swiss vote: “The last thing Europe needs are new walls” . Handelsblatt , February 9, 2014.
28. ↑ ^{a b} Barroso threatens Switzerland . Tages-Anzeiger , February 12, 2014.
29. ↑ "This vote is not understandable" . Berliner Zeitung , February 9, 2014.
30. ↑ Immigration vote : Schulz warns of a threatening backdrop against Switzerland . Spiegel Online , February 10, 2014.
31. ↑ «We cannot accept that» . Tages-Anzeiger , February 9, 2014.
32. ↑ Reactions: "Key moment in Swiss politics" . Spiegel Online , February 9, 2014.
33. ↑ We have to respect the vote . portal liberal, February 10, 2014.
34. ↑ Switzerland votes to re-introduce curbs on immigration
35. ↑ ^{a b} Niklaus Nuspliger: Tumults in the EU Parliament: Switzerland creates emotions , Neue Zürcher Zeitung of February 26, 2014, accessed on February 27, 2014.
36. ↑ France's industry minister rages: «Ruin of Switzerland» . Swiss radio and television , February 18, 2014.
37. ↑ Reaction to referendum: France wants to rethink relations with Switzerland . Spiegel Online , February 10, 2014.
38. ↑ Merkel's mildness for Switzerland
39. ↑ Respect for the Swiss vote . Bundeskanzlerin.de
40. ↑ Referendum on immigration: Swiss vote upsets Europe . Süddeutsche Zeitung , February 10, 2014.
41. ^ Immigration: FPÖ calls for a referendum based on the Swiss model
42. ↑ Switzerland agrees to the SVP initiative
43. ↑ Merkel sees considerable problems with Switzerland. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . Retrieved February 10, 2014 . 
44. Jump up in the agglomeration. In: Berner Zeitung . March 18, 2014, accessed March 20, 2014 . 
45. ↑ Peter Moser: Grown skepticism towards immigration. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung . March 6, 2014, accessed July 29, 2014 . 
46. ^ Federal Council: Message on the amendment of the Aliens Act. March 4, 2016, p. 3018 , accessed August 18, 2020 . 
47. ^ Federal Council: Message on the extension of the agreement on the free movement of persons to Croatia. March 4, 2016, accessed August 18, 2020 . 
48. ↑ Swiss Federal Assembly: 16,028 freedom of movement agreement. Extension to Croatia. In: Curiavista Business Database. Retrieved August 18, 2020 . 
49. ^ FDJP: Press release: Switzerland ratifies the Croatian Protocol. December 16, 2016, accessed August 18, 2020 . 
50. ^ Federal Council: Message on the amendment of the Aliens Act. March 4, 2016, accessed August 18, 2020 . 
51. ^ Federal Assembly: 16.027 Aliens Act. Controlling immigration and improving the implementation of the free movement agreements. In: Curiavista Business Database. Retrieved August 18, 2020 . 
52. ^ Official Bulletin of the Federal Assembly, National Council. December 16, 2016, p. 2315 , accessed on August 18, 2020 . 
53. ^ Official Bulletin of the Federal Assembly, National Council. December 16, 2016, p. 2317 , accessed August 18, 2020 . 
54. ↑ Bernhard Ehrenzeller: Art. 121a . In: The Swiss Federal Constitution. St. Gallen commentary . 3. Edition. tape 2 . Zurich / Basel 2014, p. 2208-2211 .
55. ↑ Federal Council: Message on the popular initiative “Get out of the impasse! Abandonment of the reintroduction of immigration quotas ». April 26, 2017, accessed August 18, 2020 . 
56. ↑ 17.030 Get out of the dead end! No reintroduction of immigration quotas. Popular initiative. In: Curiavista Business Database. Retrieved August 18, 2020 . 
57. ^ Federal Chancellery: Notice of withdrawal. January 9, 2018, accessed August 18, 2020 .