What is striking about the current Swiss debate on the ‘10-million initiative’ is the lack of substance in the opponents’ arguments. Scaremongering, fear of the EU and EU sanctions, Trump or the EU, Schwexit (without being a member of the EU), the impending closure of hospitals, an immediate halt to worker immigration, and even an absurd comparison with Japan are all being bandied about. However, these consequences, comparisons and questions are not up for debate.

And the name is  Nachhaltigkeitsinitiative/ Initiative sur la durabilité or Sustainability Initiative’, not ‘Chaos Initiative’, honourable Members of Parliament and members of the Federal Council.

The issue is the necessary regulation of labour migration and other forms of immigration. In the Netherlands, riots in this context are a daily occurrence. More and more citizens are fed up; see also Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, Sweden, or France; only there is no direct democracy.

Demagoguery by activists (even in the highest political circles, including members of the Federal government and parliament), the vilification of the initiators, or politically correct populism are disastrous for direct democracy and society. It is not the substance of this initiative that is the subject of debate; rather, the initiator is being pilloried.

She is, however, a barometer of society. Democracy means power (kratos) of the people (demos). Otherwise, abolish direct democracy and the majority of the cantons. That would simplify political life considerably.

The Confoederatio Helvetica (CH) would, however, soon become Switzerland (SCH, Schweiz), a normal European country in the heart of Europe, divided along social, cultural, linguistic and political lines. The Swiss system of direct democracy is based on trust. That trust is now being undermined.

And that is neither a compliment nor a promising prospect. The EU is the democratic, economic, monetary and political problem with high levels of debt, not Switzerland. Switzerland must not become more European in democratic, economic, monetary and political terms; on the contrary, the EU must become more like Switzerland.

Since its foundation in 1957, the European Union has played a positive economic and cooperative role in Western Europe. This Union is first and foremost an economic project. It is also a project of necessary European cooperation, but (financially and militarily) almost entirely dependent on the US.

However, since the megalomaniacal ambitions surrounding the introduction of the euro, foreign policy, ever-increasing centralisation, bureaucratisation, the democratic disempowerment of citizens and excessive regulation, things have spiralled further and further out of control. Moreover, this organisation, with its proliferation of ambitions, wishful thinking, institutions, budgets and a bureaucracy and politicians privileged to the point of absurdity, cannot be reformed.

From the outset, the EU has played a positive role as a unifying force and a symbol. However, it did not preserve peace in Western Europe between 1945 and 1989, nor does it do so across Europe today. Germany had been bombed to the ground after 1945 and had come of age following its (too) rapid rise (1871–1914), and France did not repeat the mistake it had made in 1919 (Versailles).

The EU’s first deployment, initially without the US (1991–1999 during the Balkan Wars), went terribly wrong, and things have not improved since: division over global issues, wrong decisions (Africa, Iran, Nord Stream, even after the first invasion of Ukraine in 2014) or blatant mismanagement (for example, with the absurd environmental and climate targets).

And why, for example, does the Council of Europe not concern itself with Erasmus and Horizon for all European countries, as was previously the case? The EU is granting itself ever more powers, often in breach of the European Treaties (the Court of Justice of the European Union too often turns a blind eye to this, contrary to its legal duty).

Immigration and the Swiss Constitution

In another area, too, the agreement is not only poorly thought out but also violates the Constitution:

Art. 121 a (1): Switzerland independently controls the immigration of foreigners.

Art. 121 a (2): The number of permits for the stay of foreigners in Switzerland is limited by annual maximum numbers and quotas. The right to permanent residence, family reunification, and social benefits can be restricted.

Art. 121 a (4): No international treaties may be concluded that violate this article.

 The agreement with the European Union, an international organisation, blatantly ignores the constitution here as well. Swiss immigration policy is being abolished, as EU citizens receive permanent residence permits after 5 years, including family reunification and social benefits. Even the EU member Denmark supported an opt-out clause in the failed EU immigration policy, but Switzerland did not.

The agreement ignores the fact that millions of migrants/refugees in EU countries, not only in Germany, have very easily obtained a passport and thus also have access to Switzerland. Spain, for example, grants 500,000 illegal immigrants a permanent residence permit without further checks.

The requirement for an “employment contract” for the residence permit is meaningless, as family, friends, and clan structures can easily provide a job at many (obscure) companies. Loyalty often lies not with the country and its government but with family, friends, and clans. In dictatorships, it is a survival strategy: “If you don’t steal from the state, you steal from the family.” That was the case under communism and remains the case in many countries of emigration today.

In the Netherlands, for example, fraud with child benefits and other social benefits is commonplace because 1) the situation in the countries of origin is hardly controllable, and 2) the European Court of Human Rights has prohibited control by country because this would be “ethnic profiling.”

Moreover, it is not for the Swiss authorities or the court, but for the Court of Justice of the European Union, to decide what constitutes an employment contract. And this court is very flexible, not to mention the also generous European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

An automatic right to reside after five years will result in large-scale, permanent “immigration.” And these are not the traditional expats, who never bring their parents and other family members and usually leave after a few years.

Due to EU regulations, the Swiss government must also grant criminally convicted persons from EU countries a temporary residence permit and, after five years, a permanent residence permit. The many closed restaurants, hotels and other establishments in the country also offer criminals opportunities to settle in Switzerland as entrepreneurs and thus obtain a residence permit, including employment contracts for family, friends and other clan members without further screening. Who is sovereign in matters of immigration, Brussels or the cantons and the federal government?

The large numbers of undocumented immigrants, taken in by friends, family and clans, are also a growing cause for concern. Switzerland, too, cannot save the whole world, but it can undermine its own social, educational and societal systems.

If a new nation were to emerge today, no one would even consider establishing a monarchy (barring some Swiss eccentric). Nor does Switzerland need to join the EU in the 21st century (which, in fact and constitutionally, is the case under the new institutional treaty). Legislative, executive and judicial powers transferred to the EU (as in the proposed new treaty) do not mark the end of the process. On the contrary, it is the beginning. The EU will increasingly appropriate more powers and impose ever-higher financial demands. This is inherent to its functioning, centralist structure and bureaucracy.

The Netherlands and the other founding members naturally joined the EU following the trauma of the first half of the 20th century. Today, however, these founding members find themselves in a difficult democratic, social and political situation, for which the EU is also to blame. The current EU poses an acute threat to national institutions and to citizens’ trust in the political system.

The EU’s new migration pact will do little to improve immigration management. And what does ‘together in Europe’ actually mean? Many EU countries pay (too) little heed to European treaties, including those on immigration, not to mention widespread corruption, protectionism, national debt, the euro or state aid.

Spain, for example, recently robbed 10 billion euros from the ‘Corona fund’ to finance pensions, whilst France is lowering the retirement age back to 62 (financed by the European Central Bank).

May there, however, remain at least one Helvetian enclave and oasis in Europe, if only as a democratic, innovative, decentralised, enterprising, scientific, inspiring and unique example. That is not the easiest path, but in the long term it pays off. To be or not to be, that is the question.