In its usual low-key manner, Switzerland celebrated its National Day on 1 August. The Swiss national anthem could be heard throughout the country in German (Schweizerpsalm), French (Cantique suisse), Italian (Salmo svizzero) and Romansh (Psalm svizzer).

The Swiss anthem was composed and written by Alberych Zwyssig (1808–1854) and Leonhard Widmer (1808–1868) and was later translated into Romansh (Gion Antoni Bühler, 1825–1897), French (Charles Chatelanat, 1833–1907) and Italian (Camillo Valsangiacomo, 1898–1978).

Unlike most other national anthems, this song is neither bombastic, historical, nationalistic nor explicitly political in character. The themes of freedom, the countryside, elements of nature and trust in the Creator fully live up to the title ‘Psalm’. The composition, however, is of moving beauty and leaves even mountains,

lakes, rivers and the flora and fauna deeply moved.

A performance at Saint-Pierre Cathedral in Geneva on 18 June this year was, however, of a completely different nature. This church, which has been Reformed since 1536 (in French: Le Temple), still serves this purpose. This did not, however, prevent those attending the memorial service for the left-wing activist and intellectual Jean Ziegler (1934–2026) from striking up ‘The Internationale’.

It is not only the lack of respect and knowledge regarding the religious and historical background of this place of worship that speaks volumes about the co-organisers (the Socialist Party, SP). Equally sobering is the lack of self-reflection, which reveals

much about the nature of this party.

This outdated battle hymn does not stand alone, but forms part of a pattern. Millions of Christians worldwide are still being persecuted under the banner of ‘The Internationale’, including in North Korea and China, just as they were in Eastern Europe until 1989.

This party’s current hero is the socialist, anti-Semitic and Muslim mayor of New York, who mobilises his voters with a populist campaign in the style of Trump.

The background of many participants at this commemorative event – and in particular the expressions of condolence from those absent, including the Cuban dictator, the notorious anti-Semite Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Francesca Albanese (UN Special Rapporteur) – are telling.

The SP, for example, is accusing Israel of committing genocide without a court ruling. The statements and opinions of UN experts carry just as much legal weight as the remarks of extremist Israeli ministers.

In doing so, the SP is deliberately and opportunistically violating a fundamental principle of the rule of law about its new target audience: the presumption of innocence until a court rules otherwise. Furthermore, hundreds of millions of victims, and the destroyed countries and economies of this ‘International’ (with Nicaragua as the latest addition) can no longer make their voices heard.

This lack of self-reflection, respect and historical context also affects Switzerland.

The choice of ‘The Internationale’ instead of the ‘Swiss Psalm’ at Le Temple for an apparently ‘great’ Swiss citizen is, at the same time, a decision in favour of international socialism, a state-controlled economy, a directed or tiered democracy (in the best-case scenario), centralisation and bureaucracy, and against federalism, decentralisation, the market economy, direct democracy and subsidiarity à la Suisse.

The enthusiasm for the new agreement with the European Union must also be viewed from this perspective. Neither the SP nor the Greens are supporters of the market economy or the Swiss economy, yet they use these as their main argument in support of the ‘Bilateral Agreements III’.

However, this agreement transfers legislative, judicial and executive powers to an international organisation and thus, in accordance with the spirit and purpose of Article 140 of the Federal Constitution, constitutes membership of the EU. A majority of the cantons is constitutionally mandatory. To ignore this amounts to a coup d’état, quite apart from other obvious violations of the Constitution, for example in the areas of immigration, the sovereignty of the cantons and the people, and direct democracy.

This also leads to a member of the Federal Council who has, on previous occasions, publicly advocated positions that are legally and factually untenable, and has recently done so again regarding Ceuta and immigration. In one of his speeches on 1 August, he declared that ‘Switzerland belongs to Europe’. Whilst his geographical knowledge may be adequate, his understanding of constitutional law, legal matters and politics is, once again, characterised by activism.

Europe is not the EU, and the EU is not Europe. What this Federal Councillor and his party are striving for is, in itself, a legitimate goal. Still, it must be pursued in accordance with transparent, fair and, above all, constitutionally compliant procedures. And that is not the case.

Today’s EU is a bureaucratic, centralised, protectionist, non-transparent and financially and monetarily bankrupt political entity that is incompatible with the Swiss model. It is based on the ‘one size fits all’ principle, on quantity, on ever-increasing debt and subsidies, and on ever-decreasing transparency and responsiveness to citizens, particularly regarding small and medium-sized enterprises.

However, the EU is constantly expanding its powers, its budget, and its bureaucracy, not only at the expense of the nation-states but also at the expense of the Council of Europe, with its 45 members, whose core tasks were once education, culture, and human rights. The EU has partially usurped these areas.

This does not detract from the EU’s achievements in various fields. Yet its financial, political and administrative model is no longer fit for purpose. Just as monarchies are no longer established these days, Switzerland should not become a member of the EU either.

The EU should have reformed itself as early as 2004 with the accession of ten (former communist) states, but failed to do so. Its institutional model is still based on the structures of 1957, when it had six members, even though it is expected to have around 35 members by 2035.

It cannot even agree on the location of its parliament. Given centuries-old cultural, linguistic, fiscal, economic, political, historical and mental differences, this is hardly possible.

At the same time, it is interfering ever more heavily in national affairs, such as pensions, social security systems and unemployment, income and wealth taxes, the survival of agricultural businesses, national railways, healthcare, education, building regulations and many other areas. The United Nations and its ‘experts’ (whoever they may be), too, are increasingly developing so-called ‘soft law’, which finds its way into national legal systems via UN experts and resolutions.

The EU should stand by the foundations of achievable integration, namely the single market and intergovernmental cooperation and coordination in other areas (such as migration, education, policing, defence and foreign policy).

Switzerland, too, can and should preferably be part of this international cooperation, including defence policy. Times have changed since 24 February 2022 and are no longer comparable to those of 1914–1918, 1940–1945, or 1989.

However, Switzerland must continue to determine its own immigration policy rather than transferring it to the EU, as provided for in the new agreement. Ceuta is no exception; thousands of irregular migrants have remained in Ceuta and are entitled to asylum. The French border at Calais, an external Schengen border with the United Kingdom, is also a farce, not to mention the many undocumented migrants in Switzerland.

In short: an opt-out from the EU’s failed migration policy (as with Denmark and Poland); no automatic right of residence after five years; criminal record checks on immigrants from other EU states; and, unless treaties – and in particular their judicial interpretation – are amended, the termination of those outdated human rights treaties from a bygone era that concern family reunification and minors. This is a duty of the Swiss state towards its own citizens and society.

Today’s EU, however, corresponds exactly to the vision of the proponents of the new agreement: the dissolution of the ‘medieval’ and the ‘Ungeheuer that is Switzerland’ (a term used by European great powers 1848-1945) in favour of merging into a fictitious union of European brother nations, European federalism instead of the socialist Internationale.

For the same reason, the Swiss passport is to be made easily, cheaply and quickly available to immigrants aged 16 and over. This has nothing to do with democracy, civic-mindedness or ‘Swissness’, but rather with quantity of voters and with the democratic impoverishment from below.

This European Union is increasingly resembling the United Nations, and that is not meant as a compliment. The commemorative ceremony mentioned above provides a clear perspective on the dismantling of the Confoederatio Helvetica, although it too should be reformed and digitally modernised in various areas.