The Swiss state model is more future-compatible than the EU

mw. It is encouraging that more and more prominent figures, particularly from the business world, are speaking out to reject the EU treaty package on fundamental grounds. Among them is Kurt Weigelt, a St. Gallen-based retail entrepreneur and former director of the St.Gallen-Appenzell Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In his recently published book, “Die Eidgenossenschaft im 21. Jahrhundert. Eine alte Idee für eine neue Zeit” (The Swiss Confederation in the 21^st Century: An Old Idea for a New Era), he convincingly demonstrates the connection between Switzerland’s history and its future prosperity. In his publications and in our personal conversation, the author focuses on the Swiss understanding of the state, which is built from the bottom up and therefore incompatible with the centralised EU system. Kurt Weigelt counters the short-term thinking of some business representatives by arguing that Switzerland’s political stability—based on direct democracy, federalism, and the militia system—is an indispensable condition for the high quality of Switzerland as a business location.

Current Concerns: Mr Weigelt, in your statements you point out that any discussion about the treaty with Brussels must begin with the different ways in which the EU and Switzerland understand the state; as these are incompatible. I quote from the introduction to your latest book: “The confederation as a concept of statehood is future-compatible. A community built from the bottom up is far better prepared for the challenges posed by a fragmented society than are centrally administered political systems. […] What is non-negotiable is the cooperative understanding of the state. This is what constitutes the Swiss model of success and must not be sacrificed to short-term political or economic interests.” These words speak for themselves. Could you say something further nonetheless?
Kurt Weigelt: This is actually my central concern. I also address history, attempting to explain and understand Switzerland from its historical perspective. But it is, of course, the crucial question whether Switzerland, as a political system, as our direct democracy, is fit for the future. Or does the future belong to centrally administered conglomerates, supranational entities? And I definitely do not believe that it does.
  If you get to the bottom of this question, then this thinking that everything has to be uniform, that everything has to be centrally administered, the standardisation – that, for me, is the thinking of an industrial society, the thinking of the 19^th and 20^th centuries, when the goal was to manage mass society. Today we are in a completely different social situation, especially with regard to digitalisation, but also to globalisation and migration. Society is very fragmented. Even in Germany, we now have six parties; in Italy, the major parties collapsed some time ago; we have movements – that is where you can see this most clearly. Now the political system in Spain is on the verge of collapse. All solutions that aim to unify everything are bound to fail in today’s society.
  In the light of its history, Switzerland is geared towards dealing with diversity. This is the principle behind cooperatives, where very different entities work together and find common solutions. We have learned to manage multiple languages, and, in the past, competing religions. We have diverse cultural foundations, and we have always taken migrants. Switzerland’s system is designed to absorb diversity. And that is why I believe that Switzerland, that our political system, is far better equipped to meet the challenges of the future than our neighbouring countries or the EU.
  In my view, Germany is typical. They have to build firewalls, they have to exclude certain parties, they have to employ conflict strategies because they are unable to cope with the changed political landscape. Switzerland, on the other hand, has always lived with having these diverse social currents represented, for example, in the Federal Council. That is why I am quite certain – this is a topic that has concerned me for a very long time – that Switzerland is fundamentally much better positioned than our neighbouring countries.
  I take much pleasure at your question [asked at the beginning of this interview], because this is my central concern. And it is rarely asked. Instead, people discuss the past and current politics, but what is really important is the future. I am convinced that we are fit for the future.

As an entrepreneur and former director of the St. Gallen-Appenzell Chamber of Commerce and Industry (IHK), are you bothered by the fact that today’s business associations argue too one-sidedly from an economic perspective in their position papers on the relationship between Switzerland and the EU? Is there a lack of historical and constitutional knowledge?
I have no problem with differing opinions within an organisation. That is part of our political system, and we have to both debate and tolerate these differing opinions. What I do somewhat regret is that political thinking, in particular, is not as prevalent in business associations as I believe it should be. Perhaps with my background and my doctoral dissertation in constitutional law, I was a bit of an anomaly within the business associations, and one of my presidents [of the St. Gallen-Appenzell Chamber of Commerce] was Konrad Hummler; he thought similarly. We grappled very intensively with these political questions; but that discipline currently gets the short end of the stick in business associations.
  And it is not even necessarily the case that economic policy is at the centre of attention; the focus is purely on short-term optimisations. Ultimately, however, we need to address questions of long-term development.

But even from a short-term perspective, I do not understand why economiesuisse and other business associations, which are urgently calling for less bureaucracy domestically, are agreeing to the EU package. It would bring far more bureaucracy to the economy.
Large companies can certainly cope with bureaucracy better than small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); the federal government even calculated this once. The more employees they have, the lower the bureaucratic costs per employee become. Bureaucracy is therefore primarily a problem for SMEs. The economiesuisse member companies, the corporations with legal departments, can handle these issues. That is why bureaucratic costs are no decisive factor for large companies.

In your recent interview with the “St. Galler Tagblatt,”1 you said that the top people in politics and business are not very happy when the electorate gets involved.
In my opinion, the relationship between business associations and direct democracy is more of a forced marriage than a love affair. By its initial idea, by its very nature, direct democracy was directed against the concentration of power in business and politics. Neither economiesuisse nor the St. Gallen-Appenzell Chamber of Commerce has ever called for a referendum or launched an initiative. They are not fit for referendums, unlike the trade unions, which have a completely different political history. And this is understandable because business associations used to be able to rely on a majority in the governments (of the cantons and the Confederation). That is no longer the case. We no longer have governments with an unconditionally pro-business majority. The business associations have not truly absorbed this change in their role. They still behave as they did fifty years ago. That will simply not work any longer. The director of economiesuisse is no longer the eighth Federal Councillor [as was the director of its predecessor, the Trade and Industry Board, mw]. That is now a thing of the past. And this transformation, it is not really working.

The title of the aforementioned interview with you is: “We do not need these EU treaties”. More and more Swiss business leaders are expressing similar opinions. So can the Swiss economy also survive on the basis of the existing treaties with the EU?
Well, I believe that the economy can, in principle, adapt to any form of cooperation. It simply has to adjust to the external framework. I truly believe that our economy does not need these EU treaties. All these certification issues are always brought up [referring to the Mutual Recognition Agreements – MRA], but if you look at the figures, they are actually relatively insignificant. I believe what businesses really want is the free movement of persons. And we are not voting on the free movement of persons in this treaty package; this is not the issue here. But it will be the issue when it comes to the initiative against a Switzerland of 10-millions. Then it will be discussed.
  I do not believe the economy will have a problem without the EU package. On the other hand, I am convinced that the stability of our political system is the crucial framework that distinguishes Switzerland as a business location. And if we abandon this quality, the long-term disadvantages for the economy will be greater than any short-term technical problems. And that is the question that, in my opinion, is not being discussed thoroughly enough by business associations.
  Because if you ask businesses about the advantages of Switzerland as a business location, the high stability of the political system always comes first. And what are the reasons for this high stability? Our institutions, direct democracy, federalism, and the militia system. If you abandon these factors, you are essentially calling the special qualities of our business location into question.

You consider a mandatory referendum with a majority of cantons indispensable when it comes to the Switzerland-EU package. Could you elaborate on that?
That is actually the question that rattles me most in this context - the matter-of-fact way in which the Federal Council says: No majority of the cantons is needed. According to my assessment, the EU treaty package would be the most important institutional reform since the introduction of the legislative referendum and the popular initiative in the 19^th century. It changes our political system. In our understanding, such fundamental changes have constitutional status and must be subject to a majority of cantons and a majority of the people. The fact that they are technically just laws is a formalistic argument that is incorrect. This has concerned me the most, that the Federal Council is arguing politically and tactically here, and not from a constitutional perspective.
  That is precisely what Oliver Zimmer says: The public’s trust is being sported with here. This also applies to the Federal Council’s explanatory report [on the Switzerland-EU treaty package, mw]. I took the trouble to read the 931 pages. This is essentially a piece of propaganda, and that is simply not right. It is not the role of the federal administration and the Federal Council to manipulate political discourse in this way. And that bothers me almost more than the entire history of the EU treaties.
  The formation of political will was already the subject of my doctoral dissertation, specifically the rule-of-law conditions for proper political decision-making. And there is gross negligence in Federal Bern today. I believe the problem lies primarily with the administration and with a Federal Council that has lost control of this administration.

Thank you very much for this insightful conversation, Dr Weigelt. •

­

¹ Schmid, Stefan. “Diese EU-Verträge brauchen wir nicht (We don’t need these EU treaties).” Interview with Kurt Weigelt. In: St. Galler Tagblatt of November 6, 2025

* Kurt Weigelt studied law at the University of Bern and earned his doctorate with a dissertation on the possibilities of state financing of political parties. He is a retail entrepreneur and an honorary senator of the University of St. Gallen. From 2007 to 2018, he was director of the St. Gallen-Appenzell Chamber of Industry and Commerce. Weigelt is married and has four children.