There is a certain irony in Switzerland's latest national referendum that would not be lost on anyone who remembers Malta's political debates of the 1990s and early 2000s.

Back then, Malta was divided between two competing visions. The Nationalist Party, under Eddie Fenech Adami, pursued full membership of the European Union. Labour, under Alfred Sant, promoted a different model: Malta as the "Switzerland of the Mediterranean" - closely linked to Europe, enjoying many of the benefits, but avoiding the obligations that came with membership.

Fast forward a quarter of a century, and it is Switzerland itself that has become the subject of a fascinating debate about population growth, immigration and national capacity.

Last Sunday, Swiss voters rejected a proposal that would have capped the country's population at 10 million by 2050. The initiative, backed by the right-wing Swiss People's Party, was defeated by roughly 55% to 45%, despite widespread concerns about housing, infrastructure and demographic growth.

Supporters argued that Switzerland was becoming overcrowded and that public services were under strain. Opponents warned that the proposal would damage economic growth, reduce access to foreign labour and potentially jeopardise Switzerland's relationship with the European Union.

The result was clear enough. The Swiss decided that while population growth is a problem that needs managing, an arbitrary cap was not the answer.

But the referendum raises an intriguing hypothetical question for Malta.

If the Maltese were presented with a similar proposal tomorrow, how would they vote?

One suspects the answer would not be 55% against.

It would probably be 55% in favour. Perhaps more.

The country's rapid population growth has become impossible to ignore.

Every morning, thousands sit in traffic jams that grow longer each year. Patients complain about pressure on healthcare services. Residents grumble about construction, overcrowding and the disappearance of open spaces. Businesses struggle with infrastructure bottlenecks. Energy supply, water resources, waste management and transport systems are all under increasing pressure.

In Switzerland, population density stands at around 208 persons per square kilometre. Malta's is approximately 1,716 persons per square kilometre, making it one of the most densely populated countries in the world. The Swiss held a referendum because they feel crowded. One can only imagine what they would think if they had to navigate the Central Link at rush hour or attempt to find parking in Sliema on a summer afternoon.

The humorous side almost writes itself.

The Swiss are debating whether 9.1 million people are too many in a country covering more than 41,000 square kilometres. Malta has nearly 600,000 people squeezed into 316 square kilometres and is being told that the population may eventually approach 800,000 by 2040. Finance Minister Clyde Caruana himself has repeatedly warned that Malta's demographic trajectory raises important questions about sustainability and quality of life.

Yet behind the humour lies a serious reality.

Unlike Switzerland, Malta's population boom did not happen accidentally.

It was policy.

Successive Labour administrations built their economic model around labour importation. First under Joseph Muscat and then under Robert Abela, economic growth was fuelled by a rapidly expanding workforce. Thousands upon thousands of foreign workers arrived to fill jobs across multiple sectors.

The strategy worked.

It would be intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Malta weathered the Covid-19 pandemic better than many European economies. It maintained growth through international crises, including the war in Ukraine and instability in the Middle East. Employment reached record levels. Public finances remained comparatively resilient. The economy expanded at rates that many European governments could only envy.

But every policy comes with costs.

The challenge is that the costs were either underestimated or deliberately postponed.

For years, anyone raising concerns about population growth risked being labelled alarmist. Questions about infrastructure capacity were often dismissed. Concerns about quality of life were brushed aside by economic statistics showing continued growth.

Today, however, the consequences are visible to everyone.

The country's labour market has become heavily dependent on foreign workers. Walk into almost any restaurant and chances are your waiter will be foreign. Board a bus and the driver will likely be foreign. Visit a care home and many carers will be foreign. Construction sites rely overwhelmingly on foreign labour. Food delivery services, transport operations, hospitality businesses and numerous other sectors function largely because of foreign workers.

This is not a criticism.

It is simply a fact.

The uncomfortable reality is that many of these jobs would remain unfilled if foreign workers disappeared overnight.

This is where a hypothetical Maltese referendum becomes complicated.

Many people would instinctively vote to cap population growth. They see the traffic, the congestion and the pressure on services. Their frustrations are genuine.

But would they also be prepared for the consequences?

Would restaurants accept shorter opening hours because there are not enough workers?

Would hotels scale back operations?

Would construction projects slow dramatically?

Would healthcare facilities struggle to recruit sufficient staff?

Would businesses relocate elsewhere because labour shortages had become too severe?

These are not theoretical questions. They are precisely the arguments that helped defeat the Swiss proposal. Business groups, political leaders and economic experts argued that Switzerland's prosperity depends significantly on foreign labour and international openness. Ultimately, enough voters agreed.

Malta faces a similar dilemma, except arguably in a more acute form.

The country has become dependent on imported labour while simultaneously struggling with the consequences of imported labour.

That contradiction cannot continue indefinitely.

What is perhaps most striking is that both sides of Malta's political divide have become reluctant to engage honestly with the issue.

Labour is understandably hesitant because population growth formed an integral part of its economic success story. Acknowledging the downsides risks undermining one of the foundations of its economic narrative.

The Nationalist Party, meanwhile, often criticises the consequences but does not explain how it would maintain economic growth while reducing reliance on foreign workers.

As a result, Malta finds itself in a curious position.

Almost everyone agrees there is a problem.

Almost nobody agrees on the solution.

And so the country continues along its current path.

More workers are needed because the economy requires them. More infrastructure is required because more workers arrive. More housing is needed because more people require accommodation. More roads are needed because more vehicles use them. Then more workers are needed to build the infrastructure required by the additional workers.

At times, it resembles one of those old cartoons in which a character keeps running faster simply to remain in the same place.

Meanwhile, there is another pressure point that often receives less attention: tourism.

Malta's record tourism figures are celebrated - understandably so, given their economic contribution. Yet every additional tourist also uses roads, utilities, public spaces and services. Population growth and tourism growth together create a cumulative burden on infrastructure that cannot be ignored.

The lesson from Switzerland is not that Malta should organise a referendum on population caps.

Quite the opposite.

The Swiss vote demonstrates that simplistic solutions rarely survive contact with economic reality. A country cannot simply decide to freeze demographic growth without considering the consequences for its labour market, competitiveness and public finances.

But the Swiss debate does highlight something Malta desperately needs: an honest national conversation.

Not about foreigners. Not about race. Not about xenophobia.

About numbers. About capacity. About sustainability.

About determining what population size Malta can realistically accommodate while preserving economic growth and quality of life.

Switzerland has decided it can live with nine million people and counting, Malta still has to determine how many people it can live with before the strain becomes too much to bear.

That conversation is long overdue.