500 years ago, in 1526, a disputatio took place in Baden (in what is now the canton of Aargau). On 19 May 1526, envoys, theologians, clergymen, humanists, scribes and printers from the Confederation of the 13 Cantons travelled to Baden. The 200 attendees discussed matters of religious truth during the day’s proceedings. In the disputation, participants sought to assert their views. In contrast to the disputation, a dialogue is merely an exchange of ideas and opinions.

Ever since Martin Luther published his reformatory theses in 1517, there had been debate about the true faith, the sale of indulgences and the Church. The Reformation stance was not the majority view in the Old Swiss Confederacy or beyond.

Various Reformed cantons went their own way within the Tagsatzung. 17th-century painting. Collection: National Museum, Zurich

The disputatio was a format used at medieval universities. Luther initiated the first religious Reformation disputation in Leipzig in 1519. From 1523 onwards, disputationes were already taking place in Zurich and later in other cantons and towns of the Old Swiss Confederacy, as well as in future cantons.

Ever since Luther published his 95 Theses in Wittenberg in 1517, Christian Europe had been divided over the question of true faith and marked by various schisms. Among other things, this led to numerous (civil) wars. Moreover, economic interests also lay at the heart of the Reformation. The often wealthy abbeys and other Catholic institutions were coveted prizes for the rulers of a region.

The disputatio was convened by the Tagsatzung of the Confederation; here is a picture from 1531. Collection: Stadtarchiv Baden/Historisches Museum Baden

The disputatio was a model frequently employed in Switzerland during the Reformation. It helped to ensure that there were relatively few armed conflicts (1529/1531 and 1656/1712), although the Sonderbund War (1847) should be regarded as a constitutional and religious conflict.

The Simultaneum, the division of the cantons following a referendum, or a relatively tolerant attitude in various cantons (apart from some Calvinist cantons) formed the basis of this development. The Swiss model of compromise, involving citizens and politicians, was already functioning at that time.

It was a form of direct democracy which, whilst far from perfect, was already unique in Europe at the time.

Direct democracy means far more than just a referendum. It is a process of communication, involving all strata of society and, above all, citizens and the business community. This is certainly not the case in the EU, let alone the idea that Swiss-style direct democracy could function within the EU. That is ‘fake news’ from the Federal Council.

Even the Dutch Parliament often has no idea about the EU’s legislative process and the many powerful lobby organisations, the corruption and the national interests of (larger) countries. Even when it does, it is all too often outvoted by other Member States or ignored by European judges (on immigration, the euro, fisheries, agriculture, taxation, pensions, social security, etc.).

The first referendum since 1815 (on further EU integration, with 62 per cent against) in the Netherlands was immediately abolished. The EU and national governments annulled referendums in ten other countries. Démocratie à l’européenne.

The result: ever more unrest, riots and resistance against the government in the Netherlands, ever less trust in democracy (or what remains of it in the Netherlands, with its ‘corruption à la néerlandaise’).

Times have changed for the Swiss Confederation too. What remains unchanged, however, is what binds a community together. In Switzerland, these are subsidiarity, federalism, decentralisation, and direct democracy, all of which are directly linked to them.

The EU, with its ever-increasing encroachments on sovereignty in taxation, finance, the judiciary, the economy, constitutional affairs, social policy, and education, is incompatible with the Swiss model.

One example of this, amongst others, is the EU’s direct interference in migration and immigration policy. The planned new treaty with the EU not only stands in direct contradiction to the Swiss Constitution, but also symbolises that direct democracy will no longer hold any significance following a referendum.

Germany and the Netherlands are also examples of mass immigration and the ease with which immigrants can obtain citizenship. National politics and the administration of justice are no longer possible. The scale of abuse is enormous, for instance in relation to child benefit, social security payments and family reunification, not to mention rising crime and the emergence of parallel societies.

An employment contract secured through family, friends, clans or the purchase of abandoned catering businesses or other companies can be arranged quickly, thereby enabling the holder to obtain a residence permit.

Furthermore, it is the Court of Justice of the European Union that defines what constitutes an employment contract (a few hours per week), not Swiss judges or the Swiss authorities. On this point too, the Federal Council is disseminating misleading and false information, which can be explained by the ideological and activist stance of some of its members.

‘To be or not to be’ for the Swiss Confederation. Give the EU an inch, and in a few years it will want a mile and Switzerland’s financial resources.