Summary

FDP Co-President Benjamin Mühlemann urgently warns against the SVP initiative to limit Switzerland's population to 10 million inhabitants. According to Mühlemann, a yes to the initiative would have catastrophic consequences: automatic termination of bilateral treaties, collapse of the Schengen-Dublin system, and massive economic and security-related damage. At the same time, he sharply criticizes parliament for its lack of willingness to save in the relief package and categorically rejects tax increases.

Persons

Topics

  • Immigration policy
  • SVP Initiative "10-Million Switzerland"
  • Bilateral treaties and Schengen-Dublin
  • Financial policy and relief package
  • Security policy

Clarus Lead

Benjamin Mühlemann positions himself at the head of the no campaign against the SVP initiative and warns of drastic consequences. If passed, it would lead to automatic termination of the bilateral treaties and endanger the Schengen-Dublin system – with implications for security, economy and prosperity. In parallel, the FDP chief sharply criticizes the lack of willingness to save in parliament and calls for a second relief package instead of tax increases.

Detailed Summary

Mühlemann argues that a rigid immigration ceiling is incompatible with freedom of movement. If the freedom of movement agreement is terminated, all bilateral treaties automatically expire. With the Schengen-Dublin system, this automatic mechanism does not apply, but the EU would likely also terminate these treaties for political reasons. The consequences would be dramatic: without Schengen, Swiss police would have no access to the European information system (currently ~350,000 inquiries daily), making crime prevention extremely difficult. Without Dublin, rejected asylum applicants could submit unlimited new applications. Great Britain is already experiencing negative consequences after the Brexit-related Dublin withdrawal.

Regarding public unease about immigration, Mühlemann acknowledges legitimate concerns – such as housing shortages and overburdened infrastructure. However, he sees the FDP solution differently: expansion of infrastructure, high-rise buildings and roads, flexibility in retirement age, and better utilization of domestic labor potential (such as through the discussed individual taxation, which could bring 40,000 additional workers). The new EU protective clause for economic problems would be better than the chaos initiative, but is unlikely to take effect.

On the question of financing the additional 31 billion needed for the military, Mühlemann categorically rejects a value-added tax increase above 10 percent. Instead, he names concrete savings potential: premium subsidies, occupational rehabilitation, 50 billion annual subsidies (from sugar beets to e-bikes) and childcare contributions. The population has no confidence in tax increases as long as parliament has not provided proof of genuine willingness to save.

Key Statements

  • Automatic Chain Reaction: Immigration ceiling automatically leads to termination of bilateral treaties and endangers Schengen-Dublin system
  • Security Drama: Without Schengen-Dublin, crime prevention drops dramatically; 350,000 daily inquiries would be eliminated
  • Economic Necessity: Immigration is indispensable for prosperity, healthcare and AHV financing given low unemployment rates
  • Parliamentary Irresponsibility: Relief package is cut by one-third; structural budget deficit leads to painful autumn debates
  • Savings Alternatives Before Taxes: FDP calls for subsidy cuts and spending controls instead of value-added tax increase

Critical Questions

  1. Evidence/Source Validity: Is the statement about "~350,000 Schengen inquiries daily" based on current federal data, or are these estimates? How valid is the comparison with Great Britain Brexit consequences for the Swiss situation?

  2. Conflicts of Interest: To what extent could Mühlemann's economic interests (PR agency, Ospita presidency) influence his position on skilled immigration? What mandates does his agency concretely manage?

  3. Causality/Alternatives: Is the automatic chain reaction (freedom of movement → bilateral treaties → Schengen-Dublin) mandatory, or is there room for negotiation with the EU? Why is Mühlemann's savings model (subsidy cuts) more feasible than the SVP's proposals (quotas per sector)?

  4. Implementation Risks: How would concretely 40,000 additional workers be mobilized through individual taxation? Which subsidies (besides the mentioned examples) are actually cuttable without social or economic damage?

Sources

Primary Source: "A yes would be a colossal own goal" – Benjamin Mühlemann on the SVP Initiative – NZZ, 07.03.2026

Verification Status: ✓ 07.03.2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-check: 07.03.2026