The EU gives its members more freedom than we think.

Anyone who buys a can of snus at the checkout in Stockholm does something that is prohibited in the rest of the EU. Oral tobacco may not be sold in any member state, except Sweden. This is stated in the EU Tobacco Directive, and it has been in the accession treaty since 1994. Anyone who wants to buy a holiday home in Denmark without living there needs a permit, which they usually do not get. The EU also signed this in a separate protocol to its treaties.

These are not loopholes. They are house rules that a country negotiated when it joined.

In Switzerland the EU sounds different. 78 percent of eligible voters consider it a "bureaucratic monster", according to a survey by gfs.bern from spring 2026. No other argument against the EU is shared by so many. In the debate over the EU package it is called the "bureaucracy world champion", the treaties are called "subjugation".

I think this picture is skewed. The EU is not a command apparatus. It is more like a condominium association: the house rules are thick, but the apartments look very different.

One thing up front: this text does not tell you how to vote on the EU package, nor whether Switzerland should join. It examines an image that influences both questions.

In its own apartment each country decides for itself

Anyone who owns a condominium knows the division. The roof, stairwell and heating belong to everyone, and the assembly decides that. What happens inside an apartment is none of the neighbours' business. The EU works similarly, and the line is drawn more precisely than you think.

The wage belongs to the apartment. The EU treaty expressly excludes it from the Union's competencies (Art. 153(5) TFEU). Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Italy have no statutory minimum wage (Eurostat), where unions and employers negotiate. When Brussels went too far with a minimum wage directive, Denmark sued. The European Court of Justice gave it a partial ruling in November 2025 (partially in its favour) and struck down the criteria by which states should set their minimum wages. Ironically, the court that Switzerland fears as a "foreign judge" protected a small state from Brussels.

When it comes to taxes each country has a veto, which is why Ireland taxes corporate profits at 12.5 percent and Hungary at 9 percent. Whether a country operates nuclear power plants is decided by the country itself, guaranteed by (Art. 194 TFEU). France generates about two thirds of its electricity from nuclear power. Austria banned nuclear power in a constitutional law. Both are members.

Six of the 27 members do not use the euro. Sweden has been obliged to adopt it since 1995, but has been exempt since a 2003 referendum: it does not join the exchange‑rate mechanism, which would be a prerequisite. Denmark votes on its special rules just as Switzerland votes on its treaties. In 2015 it rejected a relaxation, and in 2022 it removed the defence reservation with 66.9 percent yes.

The pattern goes beyond individual cases. The EU tightly regulates the internal market. What shapes everyday life remains with the states: wages, taxes, pensions, schools, hospitals, housing.

The administration threatens more often than it punishes

In the Swiss view Brussels sanctions every deviation. The Commission's numbers show something slower. In 2023 it opened 529 infringement procedures and closed 1,038, about 94 percent of them without ever going to court (2023 Annual Report). Germany and France broke the stability pact already in 2003. The EU has never imposed a fine for an excessive deficit.

The most extreme example was Hungary. For about 16 years the government in Budapest consistently opposed the EU. Between 2011 and 2025 roughly 40 percent of all Council vetoes came from Hungary (Euronews). The country remained a full‑voting member but paid a price: billions of EU funds were frozen, about €2.1 billion were permanently lost. The conflict was not ended by officials in Brussels but by Hungarian voters in April 2026.

Rules still apply. Poland paid a daily enforcement fine of initially €1 million, then €0.5 million, for its judicial reform. But this house management negotiates, extends deadlines and rarely vacates a unit.

Switzerland already follows the house rules

More interesting than the question of how free the members are is how free Switzerland is. A study by ETH Zurich examined federal legislation from 1990 to 2010. About one third of all legal changes were influenced by EU law. Only a quarter of those implemented bilateral agreements. The rest was adopted voluntarily by Switzerland. The author concludes that Switzerland is therefore "not a special case": studies of member states find values between just over 10 and around 40 percent.

Thus Switzerland lives in the house next door, uses the same stairwell and follows its house rules. It just does not go to the assembly.

How this looks in practice is shown by corporate sustainability reporting. The EU package has nothing to do with it; no contract obliges Switzerland to adopt EU rules. Nevertheless the Federal Council wanted to align it in 2024. When the EU announced it would loosen its rules, it waited. In April 2026 it presented a new draft that explicitly aligns with the current provisions (so‑called omnibus directive) of the European Union. Instead of about 200 companies reporting today, roughly 100 would have to report in the future. Switzerland therefore follows Brussels even when Brussels changes direction. It has no say in either tightening or loosening.

Also the biggest burdens are not felt by Swiss firms from Brussels. In the SECO bureaucracy monitor, building permits, food hygiene and VAT are at the top. Whether adopting EU law is seen as positive is another question. It does not fit the image of a country shielding itself from Brussels bureaucracy.

The disorder arises on both floors

Part of the regulatory flood is real, and Brussels admits it. On the list of the ten biggest internal‑market obstacles, the Commission ranks first: overly complex EU rules. Since 2025 it has tried to roll back its own flood with twelve simplification packages.

Another part is created in 27 capitals. Whoever sends technicians for a few days to France, Austria and Belgium registers them in three systems. The 27 EU reporting systems together require about 300 data fields, a common form would come with 30. Since June 2026 there is an agreement on a digital EU form. Whether a country uses it is up to them. Here more Europe would be the relief: no more rules, but the same ones.

Room for maneuver is not sovereignty

The strongest objection to this text is roughly: Of course members have room for maneuver. But they negotiated it while they were at the table, and they agree when the house rules are changed. Above all, no member state knows a direct democracy where the people decide on substantive issues four times a year. What is an exception in Denmark would be everyday life in Switzerland, so the conflict with Brussels would be more frequent. And even a sober observer like economic historian Tobias Straumann says that the contracts would bring the biggest regulatory wave in Swiss history to Switzerland«the biggest regulatory wave in Swiss history» to.

That hits a real point. Room for maneuver within a regulatory framework is something different from the freedom to reject the framework. How much room for maneuver Switzerland would have as a member, no one knows. I don’t either. Denmark’s special rules only arose after a no at the ballot box.

But the objection does not confirm the Swiss picture, it shifts it. It does not say that members lose their freedom. It says that Switzerland protects its freedom in another way: without a seat at the table, but with the possibility to say no. Both have a price. This trade‑off can be seriously debated. A monster does not appear in it.

Switzerland is not a tenant in the EU house in this picture. It is the neighbour who goes through the same staircase and usually follows the house rules voluntarily. That it is too long, he rightly complains about. He only reads it, instead of writing it down.

Oliver Herren is co‑founder of Plural, Digitec Galaxus and True Wealth. He writes his personal opinion here, not that of Plural.