Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to impose stricter rules on the country’s long-standing neutrality, backed by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party.
Final results showed around 70% of voters rejected the initiative, with the proposal also failing to win a majority in any of Switzerland’s 26 cantons.
Supporters of the initiative, led by the Swiss People’s Party, argued that the government had moved too close to the European Union and NATO, particularly through its response to Russia’s war in Ukraine.
The proposal sought to prevent Switzerland from imposing sanctions on countries unless they had been ordered by the United Nations. It also would have restricted Switzerland from joining or cooperating with military or defence alliances, except in the event of a military attack or an imminent threat.
The referendum was part of Switzerland’s latest round of votes on national and local issues. Under the country’s system of direct democracy, voters typically take part in several referendums each year on government policy.
The initiative emerged after Switzerland adopted most European Union sanctions against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine.
Swiss neutrality has been enshrined in the country’s Federal Constitution since 1848, although its interpretation and application have been debated over the years. Switzerland is not a member of NATO but has cooperated with the military alliance for decades.
Supporters argued that closer cooperation with the EU and NATO could undermine Switzerland’s security and independence of action. Opponents maintained that the existing neutrality policy gives the government sufficient flexibility to protect the country’s interests.
The proposed constitutional changes would have defined Swiss neutrality as “perpetual and armed” and barred the country from participating in military conflicts between third countries or imposing sanctions on warring states, with exceptions for UN sanctions and measures against sanctions evasion.
Switzerland’s Federal Council and Parliament had opposed the initiative, arguing that the existing policy has served the country well and provides the flexibility needed to respond to changing international circumstances.