1. What may inspire the EU from I&R experiences in Switzerland ? Some discussion points from Andreas Gross www.andigross.ch at the Meeting “Options and limits of Direct Democracy in the European Integration Process” organised by the Swiss Mission to the EC and the IRIE in Brussels, October 9th 2003

2. What may encourage the EU to have a closer look to the Swiss DD (and federalism) ▶ The modern Swiss State (since 1848) had to integrate old and very proud states, which is always more difficult than the task to integrate young and less established states (U.S.A.) ▶ It’s possible to create a transnational “Federation” while leaving the sovereignty to the nations (A lesson CH learned from the USA) ▶ The double character of a Federation (made by the peoples and the member-states) is to be ensured in a equal bicameral parliament (Another lesson CH learned from the USA) ▶ DD is not Switzerland; you don’t have to like Switzerland if you like DD

3. The positive inspirations from the Swiss experiences with Direct Democracy (DD) ▶ It’s possible to share power with the people ▶ When people participate they learn more ▶ Decentralization and participation (D&P) allows you to integrate very different peoples and states ▶ D&P enables you to develop unity in diversity ▶ Participation increases the reform potentials of a society ▶ DD reduces the distance between citizens and politicians, increases legitimacy of politics and offers more identification of the parts with the whole

4. What the EU can not learn from the Swiss experiences with Direct Democracy (DD) ▶ The Swiss see democracy as a privilege and not as a basic human right (Non-nationals ⃗ No rights) ▶ The Swiss are very sensitive to their rights, but not enough sensitive to the qualification of the process which leads to the vote (“Unfair process leads to unfair results”) ▶ The Swiss are very sensitive to their rights, but not enough sensitive to the qualification of the process which leads to the vote (“Unfair process leads to unfair results”)

5. What too many Europeans wrongly think they might learn from Swiss DD experiences ▶ DD does not make a society conservative  The mirror is not responsible for the face it shows you every morning ▶ DD is not a privilege for a small society  The possible size of a DD entity is the result of cultural skills and technological possibilities ▶ The public sphere as well as cultural integration are products of DD and not their conditions  You appreciate and learn swimming only after you tried it

6. What Europeans have to learn from the Swiss experiences when they try DD ▶ They don’t have to take DD, but if they do  They must be aware that the design of DD decides about it’s quality and it’s merits as well as it’s political potentials ▶ A citizen friendly design is possible  not too many signatures, not too quick and no fast food, interactions and cooperation's instead of antagonisms and confrontations ▶ The heart of DD are communicative processes  The DD design has to encourage communication instead of obstructing it (Quorums) ▶ DD is about issues not persons  Direct elections may undermine DD

7. What Europeans have to make better than the Swiss when they choose DD ▶ Size and quantity (S&Q) require investments in civil society building and support for active citizens who want to use DD ▶ S&Q need a set of rules to avoid unfair campaigning, transparency and a fair distribution of the opportunities to think, discuss and make up the minds ▶ The DD design needs to create incentives to encourage transnational citizen engagement and movements

8. A good design of Direct Democracy in the European Constitution would be a great support for the future of the European integration ▶ You don’t have to start with the whole ensemble of DD at once ▶ You may learn the best from DD in CH, CAL, Oregon, Italy and DK and avoid the worst and find a genuinely new and potent European DD in the interest of the Europeans and the European Integration ▶ It cant be a copy, but a way how to do better and try harder