I don't know enough about this specific initiative, but it seems that there are some negative feelings brewing regarding expats / immigrants and that these initiatives will keep coming.

I'm not basing this on a very educated view of the news, but more on the general impression I'm getting from people I speak with.

Will be interesting to see if some people in the know comment.

Oded

Middle ages, not.

But Im very glad Swiss voted against by 74%, a good message and also all those rich, I want them to keep coming, because normally they dont use any social services or other, they just contribute 'free money' to the high standards of living here in Switzerland.

Thank you rich foeignners, I love you for giving us jobs, money, and taking care of top notch poperties for future generations to 'hope to enjoy'.

And why loose that free money so other countries can get it?

I suppose they failed to diffrentiate between a Baker and a Bank Employee,  :-) immigrating to CH.

Well most of the negotiated tax expatries are not allowed to be working in switzerland, only residence. But I think they can still start up a business or import business. And that further can help with tax negotiations.

I should say Majority are not allowed to work in switerland.

but maybe there children growing up her can after age of maturity 18yrs.

I voted for eco pop. It was unpopular because anything that causes pain is not popular.

Can anyone explain in simple words what the main idea of this initiative was?

The measure would have required the government to reduce immigration from about 80,000 to 16,000 people a year. or about 0.2% of the population

Thanks Dave. What were the main arguments used to support the initiative? And the main counter-arguments?

and at least 10% of Swiss federal development aid is to be invested in programs to encourage voluntary family planning. you can interpret it as you wish, but it means "you animals don't know how to breed so we have to step in."

Maybe someone can clarify this, I'm lost. The initiative was about reducing expats (as some here say, going even further by linking the initiative to racism), or about family planning accross Switzerland, or both?

What was the main benefit the initiative was supposed to deliver? 

Sorry, there were two proposals on the table. just wanted to correct that it was all about immigration but if you read you can make your own judgement. here below you can find the initiative put succinctly in a nutshell in wikipedia.

In 2011, the general assembly decided to launch a popular initiative with the aim of reducing population growth in Switzerland. The initiative was officially declared valid on 4 December 2012 and is scheduled for voting on 30 November 2014.

The initiative proposes to insert two articles into the Swiss Constitution

Throughout the 40 years of its existence the association had ostensibly been part of the ecology movement, proposing degrowth out of Malthusian concerns mostly aimed at an academic or intellectual public, and during the 1970s it explicitly denounced populist or xenophobic motivation for immigration control advocated by James Schwarzenbach.

Nevertheless in the political climate of the immigration debate in Switzerland, especially due to the proximity of Ecopop's initiative to the the immigration referendum of February 2014, which resulted in widespread fears among the political and economic elite of deteriorating relations with the European Union, critics tended to accuse Ecopop or its supporters of (variously) xenophobic, racist, fascist, selfish or hypocritical motives.[2] [3] These attacks were mostly based on the initiative's second paragraph dedicated to global rather than national population growth, as the idea of foreign aid invested in curbing population growth in developing countries was attacked as politically incorrect and some leftist critics went as far as equating it with child euthanasia in Nazi Germany.[4] Recommendations by parties and organisations were predominantly negative, even Green Party of Switzerland,[5] the Green Liberal Party of Switzerland and Greenpeace Switzerland took a negative stance, as did the notoriously immigration-critical Swiss People's Party (on the national level, with several cantonal sections in support).[6] While leftist opposition to Ecopop is mostly expressed as criticism of xenophobia, centrist and right-of-center parties oppose it because of its economic repercussions, as a cap on immigrant workers in Switzerland would deprive the economy of flexible recruitment of specialists as well as deteriorate Switzerland–European Union relations.[7]

here's what ecopop was all about, in simple terms and with facts only, no judgement:

- the overall idea of the initiative was that overpopulation puts pressure on the enviroment, mainly by forcing new housings and transport infrastructure construction. So if we control the population growth, we'll do good to the enviroment. 

- the initiative proposed 2 steps to control the population:

1. in CH: limiting imigration to 0.2% of total population (it's now around 1%)

2. globally: dedicate 10% of swiss foreign aid towards family planning in 3rd-world countries

them be the facts. from here on, you can interpert them as you wish...

Thanks Mark, that's exactly what I was looking for. Very clear. 

It used to be 1% (net migration of approx. +80'000/year) until recently, but it's now reached +125'000 (2012) and even +136'000 (2013). These figures were highlighted yesterday in the latest OECD's International Migration Outlook report - Switzerland ranks 1st once again in terms of % (but we knew that already):

http://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/6346927-la-suisse-accueille-proportionnellement-le-plus-d-immigres-en-europe.html

http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/shifts-in-migration-underline-need-for-policy-reform.htm

So, once immigration is cut down, who do you think is going to do all the jobs that Swiss people don't accept? 

Where are employers going to get the qualified professionals they need?

And who's going to pay for the retirement benefits of elderly Swiss (unless you want to shift the retirement age at 80)?

There's a reason why all political parties, the Federal government, banks, industry, and syndicates together were against the Ecopop initiative.

Ja well, I figure that Ecopop and the people that support the idea,  are looking at the longrange problems knocking at Europes door. Remember it is also about family planning in other countries....which I think is important...to offer that first.....but that is unpopular with the church.... the other side of Ecopop was  limiting the immigrants.into CH...of which I am one....I came in under the quota system in 95......I am a proud Auslander who is also a CH Citizen...I think by limiting the immigrants it will only cement more job security within CH.  There is only 2.3% unemployment here now correct...but most people have one job, not like the USA... there people have several jobs why is that when it is so open to immigrants.....with illegal immigrants to do the work the US wont do.....you cant say....that there is a system that is guaranteed to work anywhere.....there is no example of perfection.. anywhere....but here in CH they do look long range and they do try to protect the work force that lives here....so I believe when I cast my Ja vote for Ecopop as did roughly 23% of the others in Switzerland that BOTHERED to vote....that I am voting for the future not for today...to secure jobs that pay enough to have only one job.....to pay the bills.

And for now, there is a group collecting signatures to hold a referendum to cancel the infamous vote of February 9.

"ultraxenophobic, anachronistic, catastrophic, infamous" - at least you're not biased!

And now you seem to only accept democracy when it suits you?

Adrien: what are you talking about? Omega man just linked to a TDG article, why are you attacking his post?

Nir: I'm only talking about Omega's first and last post. I'm not attacking, just questioning his mainstream and simplistic account. Is it acceptable?

Adrien: you replied while quoting a post by Omega where he simply linked to a TDG article, and that's why your post didn't make sense. 

And while I don't agree with the content of your post, even now that I understand it was meant as a comment to something else, of course it's acceptable as long as you stay on topic and off personal attacks. 

Nir: well good to know you agree with me eventually that it's acceptable, as I'm very much on topic and keep myself away from personal attacks indeed.

Adrien: the Ecopop initiative has been condemned by economists, politicians and intellectuals much more informed than I.  The idea of preserving the environment just by closing Swiss borders (i.e. that ecological problems can be solved locally rather than globally) is ridiculous to say the least.  So it well deserved those adjectives.

And if "infamous" bothers you, please replace it with "widely criticized".

OmegaloMan: again your argument is biased to say the least, so you too deserve this adjective.

And if "biased" bothers you, please replace it with "rather one-sided".

If you are able to vote, you have received a leaflet setting out both sides of the argument.

Now I must admit the debate would be more meaningful over a couple beers :)

in the meantime, peace out.