Distance

When people answer EU dysfunction with "we need more Europe", they usually mean more integration, tighter coordination and stronger central authority.

I think that diagnosis misses the architectural problem. Brussels already exercises substantial power at a great distance from the citizens affected by it.

The Architecture of Accountability

Switzerland has roughly 8.7 million people. The EU has roughly 450 million. Both are democracies, but they work on completely opposite principles.

Switzerland pushes power down. Cantons and communities set their own tax rates. Citizens act as legislators through regular referendums and ballot initiatives as well as voting for representatives. You want to change the constitution? You need dual majorities: 50% of voters and a majority of cantons. Power is distributed, local, and hard to consolidate.

The EU pulls power up. The European Commission has exclusive legislative initiative, Parliament can't propose laws, only vote on what the Commission gives them. Commission members aren't elected by anyone. You can't vote them out, you can't recall them, and they answer to governments, not citizens. Parliament can't even start a legislative process; it can only react to what's handed down.

The EU governs governments. Switzerland's government governs people.

Why This Matters in Practice

Taxation. In Switzerland, municipalities compete for residents. High taxes drive people out, low taxes attract them. The system self-corrects through exit. In the EU, Brussels harmonizes tax rates. Countries that want lower taxes can't have them. Competition is eliminated in favour of coordination, which means the slowest, most risk-averse jurisdiction sets the floor.

Migration. Switzerland handles immigration through bilateral treaties and citizen referendums. When the public votes (which they do, regularly), the government adjusts. In the EU, migration policy is set centrally, Brussels decides quotas, and countries bound by EU law have to accept them whether their citizens support it or not. Participation is performance.

Currency. Switzerland keeps the franc. It has monetary independence. Eurozone countries gave up monetary policy to Brussels, they can't control their own money supply, can't devalue to adjust competitiveness, can't run independent fiscal policy. They're subject to fiscal rules they didn't vote for and can't change without unanimous consent.

Each of these is a way of concentrating power far from the people it affects.

"More Europe" Is the Wrong Direction

The fix people propose is always the same: "We need a real European government, with a European president elected by the people, with fiscal union, with more power at the center."

This would make the democratic distance worse.

You'd have a 450-million-person jurisdiction with a single elected executive and centralized fiscal authority. Individual participation would become statistically meaningless. A Spaniard voting in EU elections influences outcomes at a scale where no individual vote matters. A Swiss voter in a canton referendum knows their vote changes actual law in their actual community. One feels like democracy. The other is the theatrical performance of democracy.

The scale is the problem, and doubling down on scale is the solution that European technocrats propose because it's the only solution they can imagine. Their answer to "Brussels is distant" is to make Brussels matter more and tighten coordination. More centralization, more rules, more Brussels.

That moves in the opposite direction from the Swiss model.

Democracy is a system-design problem

The argument is architectural.

Democracy does not scale linearly. Beyond a certain size, participation becomes symbolic. At the EU scale, no individual vote creates meaningful pressure on outcomes. At the canton scale, it does.

Switzerland works because it's obsessed with this problem. They built nested jurisdictions specifically to keep power local. They use referendums constantly, not as decoration, but as actual law. They make constitutional change hard enough that it requires genuine consensus.

The EU built the opposite: layers of indirection, bureaucratic expertise, coordination between governments instead of power from people. It may be efficient, but it is not democratic.

Europeans keep asking Brussels for more coordination, which requires more centralization, which requires less accountability. Each request for "Europe-wide standards" is a vote for making individual participation even more meaningless.

The Choice Is Clearer Than People Admit

You can have:

1. Power distributed locally, where participation matters, like Switzerland. Slower, harder to coordinate, but citizens control their lives.
2. Power consolidated centrally, where coordination works, like the EU. Efficient, coherent, undemocratic.

You cannot have both. The trade is real.

Europe's current trajectory is trying to have both, which means you get the downsides of both: centralized decisions that individual voters can't influence, combined with slow-moving coordination that does not solve problems efficiently.

That's the worst of all worlds.

Switzerland is not perfect, but its architecture makes the choice visible. When you compare the systems, ask a concrete question: which decision can an ordinary citizen initiate, change or reverse, and at what distance?