Trans-national EU project “The Future of Europe – Our opinion counts”

National report on the survey - AUSTRIA[1]

Section One: Democratisation and Institutions

• The questioned persons (=the sample) felt that the European Parliament (EP) represents them best compared to all other institutions on the EU level. On a scale ranging from 1 (low feeling of representation) to 5 (high feeling of representation) the EP reached a value of 3,6. According to the answers of the sample next were the European Commission (EC; 3,5) and the Council of Ministers (3,2). Compared to these three institutions the sample felt less represented by the European Council (Summits of the Heads of State or Government; 2,9), the European Central Bank (ECB; 2,5) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ; 2,2).

• The sample supported the demand that the EP should have equal decision rights together with the Council on all legislative matters in a predominate way (88,2%). Some respondents, however, expressed concerns about the competence of the Members of the EP to meet the expectations which are required to make the EP a real co-lawmaker together with the Council. Also respondents who backed the legislative strengthening of the EP expressed some restrictions to their support: the equal rights of the EP should not cover all but most legislative matters, the Council should have more power if competences are tackled which concern only Member States and equal decision rights should only be applied if the Council turns into a real second (parliamentary) chamber.

• Concerning the future “EU Presidency model” the sample showed no clear picture. A relative majority of the respondents (47,1%) thought that the term of the Presidency should be increased (to one and a half years) and more than one country should carry out the tasks. Almost a third (29,4%) supported the present system. Almost a quarter (23,5%) wished an elected chair for the Council meetings.

• Around two thirds of the respondents wanted that the Council gives up its executive functions and be solely a (second) legislative chamber representing the Member States. In this connection it was stressed, however, that the European political system is a unique one which can´t be (compared and) developed according to the nation-state system. The future role of the Council also depends on the shape and functions it will be given by a future constitutional treaty.

• More than three quarters (76,5%) thought that the meetings of the Council should become completely open to the public when it acts as a legislative body  - compared to the sessions of the EP. The rest (23,5%) rejected this proposal by claiming that enough “public” is created through the control of the Council by the EP and that informal talks would be moved from the tables to the corridors.

• A progressive opinion was expressed in the question of unanimity. More than three quarters (76,5%) of the sample supported the idea that in future unanimity should only be applied for a reduced number of cases or be replaced by a super-qualified majority (of 80% or so). Almost a quarter (23,5%) wished unanimity to be abolished at all. Nobody was in favour of continuing the present system.

• More than two thirds (70,6%) of the respondents wanted the EC to be the EU´s exclusive executive body.

• The sample showed again no clear picture with regard to the number of members of the future EC. A relative majority (41,1%) wanted either one Commissioner per country or less than one per country combined with a rotation principle based on equality. Standing against this opinion 11,8% of the sample wished a Commission with less than one member per country regardless of their nationality. 5,9% favoured one Commissioner per country following a junior-/senior-Commissioner model.

• More than two thirds (68,8%) of the respondents supported the election of the President of the EC by the EP. Less than a fifth (18,8% resp. 12,5%) wanted the President to be appointed by the European Council or elected by a special body composed by Members of the EP and national parliaments. Nobody wanted the EC´s president to be elected by the citizens.

• A very clear statement was expressed on the selection of the Commissioners. Everybody wanted them to be appointed by the president of the Commission and approved by the EP. Most people claimed that the EP should have the right of a vote of no-confidence against every single member of the EC.

• More than three quarters (76,5%) of the respondents supported the demand that the European Council should be the EU´s collective head holding general discussions on the overall development of the integration process but refrain from interfering in the Union´s daily business or any legislative procedure which in the worst case can even affect exclusive competences of Member States. Those who claimed that the role of the European Council should not be changed stated that a revision of the status quo would be very unrealistic and difficult concerning a clear separation of competences. The European Council was also seen as the institution that should reach a compromise if there is no chance for a solution at a “lower level”.

Section Two: Division of Competences

• A vast majority of 94,1% welcomed an EU-policy aiming at economic and social cohesion between the Member States. In people’s eyes this policy brought prosperity for the whole EU. Some elements, however, were mentioned as necessary to reach positive effects for the Union also in the future. First, this policy should not lead to harmonisation but co-ordination. Although people expressed a predominantly positive attitude towards the EU´s “cohesion-policy” some thought that the Union should not have an exclusive competence in this field. Regional differences should be taken into account, competition between members states should not suffer and the subsidiary-principle should be fully respected – to name some other critical points which were expressed by supporters of a EU-policy aiming at economic and social cohesion.

• Almost two thirds of the sample (64,7%) were in favour of the EU having the competence for the harmonisation of member state´s taxation policies. This was considered a necessity looking at the developments of an ever closer economic co-operation within the EU. Also in the connection of harmonising taxation policies the opinion was expressed that the (economic) competition between the Member States should not suffer. More than a third (35,3%) rejected the idea of EU-wide harmonised taxes. Contra arguments mentioned a wrong timing, a possible overload of the EU´s competences and the fear of loosing an important part of national sovereignty.

• The idea of an “EU-tax” replacing national contributions to the EU-budget was supported only by a close majority of the sample (52,9%). More than a third (35,3%) rejected it. A little number (11,8%) was indifferent on this question. Even the supporters of this idea, however, admitted that many details still have to be cleared up and that the establishment of an “EU-tax” can only be a long-term project.

• The sample wanted the EU to play the most important role in Economic policy. On a scale reaching from 1 (strong role) to 5 (no role) this policy area reached a digit of 1,85. Environmental policy (2) was the second area where the EU should have an important role in the eyes of the sample. Compared to these policies the EU´s influence in Justice and Home Affairs (2,06), Employment policy (2,32) and Social policy (2,5) was favoured more or less important.

• The sample showed a sophisticated picture on the question which EU-institution should have a dominant role in the EU´s foreign policy. A relative majority of the respondents (47,1%) wanted the EC and the Council to carry out the European foreign policy together. Almost 30% preferred the EC and 23,5% the Council to carry out EU´s foreign policy. The EC should be controlled by the Council and the EP. A reason for charging the Council with foreign affairs was that in this field of strong national interests no results could be achieved within the EC. The Council should set the guidelines in foreign policy which the EC should execute.

• Almost 60% of the sample preferred a future European Foreign Minister to be a member of the Commission rather than a representative from the Council (35,3%).

• More than three quarters (76,5%) supported the idea that the EP should be involved in defining the EU´s foreign policy priorities. However the EP should not have a decisive but only a consultative role in this field. Less than a quarter (23,5%) refused that the EP should be charged with foreign affairs matters. It thought that this policy area should be carried out by a European government which should not depend on the EP. The EP was considered to be to sluggish in this respect.

• A close majority (52,9%) thought that the defence policy should be carried out by the EC and the Council together. Unlike in the case of foreign affairs more people think that the Council (29,4%) should conduct the EU´s defence policy rather than the EC (17,6%). “EC supporters” wanted a control by the EP and the Council.

• A bit less than two thirds of the sample (64,7%) thought that the EU needs a Defence Minister. More people thought that this position should be part of the EC (54,5%) rather than of the Council (27,3%). Almost 20% wished these tasks to be carried out by both institutions. It was also suggested that the future European Defence and Foreign Minister should be one person. Like in some cases mentioned above people suggested a control of the EC by the Council.

• The sample´s opinion on the question whether the EP should be involved in defining the EU`s defence policy was even more positive than in the case of the involvement of the EP in foreign policy matters. Over four fifth of the respondents (82,4%) were in favour of the EP´s involvement in defence policy.

• A majority of over 80% was in favour of a European Army.

• Nobody in the sample thought that a new body should be established to deal with disputes regarding the distribution of competences between the EU and the Member States. The ECJ should stay the only institution that is charged with such matters, e.g. subsidiary disputes.

Section Three: Treaties and shape of the Union

• The whole sample was in favour that the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union should become legally binding in the course of the completion of a future European constitutional treaty. However, many expressed the view that the Charter would have to be changed in some points before becoming part of a European “constitution”. Restrictions that were mentioned concerned possible conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights.

• Almost 60% of the sample refused the idea that the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union becomes a preamble to a future European “constitution”. In the course of the interviews, however, the question arose if a preamble is a legally binding part of a “constitution”.

• Almost 90% supported the standardization of the existing treaties (EU, EC, EURATOM) into one (treaty-)document. The decisions making process of the new constitutional treaty should be based on the community method. Over 85% of the sample welcomed a European “constitution”.

• Over 70% supported an enlargement process beyond the expected entry of Bulgaria and Romania into the EU in 2007. The possibility to join the EU should be closely linked to clear and strict criteria. Almost two thirds supported the EU-membership of Turkey although this was considered to be still far away (15 years). A close majority (52,9%), however, rejected an EU membership of Russia. It was considered to be likely that an inclusion of this huge country into the EU would cause the collapse of the Union.

Section Four: Changes to the Treaties and Ratification Procedure

• Almost 90% of the sample expressed the opinion that a future constitutional treaty should be ratified by all Member States in order to become effective for the Union. Those who didn´t think that it´s necessary that all Member States ratify the European “constitution” would offer these countries a special status or give them a chance to leave the Union.

• A close majority (52,9%) was against a Europe-wide referendum on a European “constitution”.

• More than three quarters (76,5%) wanted that further changes to the treaties are decided by a convention. Some restricted this position to only fundamental changes.

 People interviewed for the survey:

Karl Blecha, President of the Association of Austrian Pensioners

 Caspar Einem, Member of the National Council, Speaker for European Union Affairs of the Austrian Social Democratic Party

 Marianne Kager, Chief Economist of Bank Austria Creditanstalt

 Otmar Lahodynsky, Coordinator of European Affairs for the Austrian weekly news magazine “Profil”

 Answer Lang, Press secretary of the Austrian Students Union

Paul Luif, Austrian Institute for International Affairs

Christian Mandl, Head of Department “EU-Coordination”, Austrian Chamber of Commerce

 Johann Marte, President of Pro Oriente

Karl Heinz Nachtnebel, Head of International Department, Austrian Trade Union

 Sándor Richter, Staff economist at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies

 Moritz Röttinger, European Commission – Directorate-General Enterprise

 Günter Schmidt, Coordinator of European Affairs for the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation ORF

 Michael Spindelegger, Member of the National Council, Speaker for Foreign Affairs, European Union and Europe of the Austrian People’s Party

Ursula Stenzel, Member of the European Parliament, Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats

Peter Strempel, Chairman of the Austrian National Committee for International Youthwork, Executive Bureau Member of the Young European Federalists (JEF), Federal chairman of JEF-Austria

 Herbert Tumpel, President of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour

 Stefan Zapotocky, Board Member of Wiener Börse AG