Report on the Interviews with 25 Hungarian Personalities in the Framework of the Project “The Future of Europe – Our Opinion Counts”
Members of the Hungarian Europe Society asked 25 Hungarian opinion-leaders on key issues of the Future of Europe debate. The overall picture seems to be very positive: journalists, leaders of civil organizations, professors and others, who were asked about their views, have very pro-European attitudes in general. Many of the interviewed persons possess a high level of knowledge on current EU-issues. Another group of people, however, have no everyday connection to European matters and could not learn much about the current dialogue on necessary institutional reforms in the EU. Since Hungary is going to join the European Union in 2004, in recent years the focus of the media and the public discourse was on our historical accession, whilst little stress could have been put on the internal European decision-making processes.
Still, most of the participants in this survey had a strong tendency to urge reforms towards an ever closer union, perhaps with dissenting models of implementation in their minds. There were no signs of eurosceptic sentiments amongst them and the protection of national interests against ‘Brussels’ was not on the agenda, either. Just to the contrary: most of the interviewed seemed to be in favour of ‘more Europe’, hence the increasing role of the supranational institutions and the Community method.
Nevertheless, in some cases there was a hesitation whether idealistic or realistic replies were needed. Moreover, the results of the survey cannot represent the views of all parts of the Hungarian political and cultural elite. It might be important to mention that a more sophisticated statistical approach could mirror fragmented views on EU issues inside the group of opinion leaders as well as the ignorance and disorientation of the wider public.
In details:
1.1. To which extent do you feel represented by the Institutions?
Here, the question is not really adequate for citizens of a will-be member state. That is why some of the interviewed could not give an answer.
The European Parliament received a grade between 3 and 4; the Council (of Ministers) was evaluated very similarly. The European Commission caused more fragmentation inside the circle of the interviewed, and the average grade for the feeling of being represented was about 3, just like in the case of the European Council. The European Court of Justice was not an exception and received an aggregate 3, but suffered from the strong fluctuation in judgments. The European Central Bank seemed to be the least popular institution in sense of people’s representation: it reached an average of 2.5 in the evaluation.
The European Parliament
1.2. Should the EP have equal decision rights with the Council on all matters?
There was an overwhelming ‘yes’ given to this question.
Some interesting comments: yes - as it is directly elected, no - only on some clearly defined matters, yes - equal but not absolute, yes – the co-decision procedure should be extended.
The Council (of Ministers)
1.3. Presidency of the Council - Which one would you prefer?
Ten people voted for maintaining of the present situation, another ten persons for maintaining of the rotation system (whilst a group of countries are sharing the presidency), and four agreed that Council meetings should have an elected chair (and other council groups should be chaired by a commission representative) – one interviewed said: none of them.
1.4. Should the Council give up this executive functions and be solely a legislative body (a senat) representing the member states?
We have a very narrow majority on the ‘yes’ side.
One expert mentioned that at EU level in most cases the Commission was the real executor.
1.5. Should the Council meetings become public, when it meets as a legislative body and the minutes made available, as it is for the European Parliament?
Twenty people said ‘yes’ (from 25), sometimes with a remark: of course. Someone had the view, however, that it’s better if the minutes are public - but it’s not so necessary. Another view: no - it is not necessarily fair to expect the same rule of the game, as it is common in the case of a purely legislative body.
1.6. Should the unanimity rule be maintained?
Eighteen persons were in favour of the second answer: Yes, for a reduced number of cases, whilst only two said Yes, as it is today, and five people represented the radical view: No, it should be abolished.
European Commission
1.7. Should the Commission become the EU´s exclusive executive body?
Nineteen people answered with a yes, although one comment claimed that in some of the cases it would not be advantageous - for example in national tuitional and linguistic questions. Someone declared that for the time being, this was not realistic.
1.8. How many members should the Commission in an enlarged Union have?
Fifteen persons supported the first method, one per country, whilst the other three options received 4-4-2 votes.
1.9. How should the President of the Commission be chosen?
Eighteen urged that he or she should be elected by the European Parliament. There were 1, 3 and 3 persons favouring the following versions.
1.10. How should the individual Commissioners be chosen?
Twenty-one said that they have to be appointed by the President of the Commission and approved by the EP and only four that they should be appointed by the Council.
The European Council
1.11. Should it become the collective Head of the European Union holding general discussions on the overall development of the integration process, but refraining from any interference in the “daily business” of the Union and the legislative and budgetary procedures?
The number of the ‘yes’ votes is nineteen.
One comment: Rather than getting involved in day-to-day decisions, but I am bit sure whether a “collective Head of the EU” could work effectively.
2.1. Should the EU have a policy aiming at economic and social cohesion between the member states?
Twenty-three yes, two voted ney.
2.2. Should the EU have the competence for the harmonization of taxation policies?
Twenty in favour, five against.
Amongst the yes voters, however, there were some important remarks like ‘but not for all kind of taxes’, ‘but any competences in the area of income taxes’, ‘to limited extent’.
2.3. Should an “EU-tax” replace national contributions to the EU-budget?
There were eight clear yes votes and fourteen simple neys.
Some comments: “Direct” paying is possible - but little-liked action, no - it would complicate the tax system, yes - it might make things more transparent, it depends on the own resources.
2.4. Should agricultural policy remain an exclusive European competence and how should this policy be developed?
This question received some criticism that this was a too complex issue. Still, two-third of the interviewed belong to the ‘yes’ block.
Nevertheless, a few remarks show that this was not an easy decision: yes - only if it has less direct intervention in contrast with the free trade rules, yes - a system devised that does not encourage overproduction and prices totally out of sync with the world market, yes - combined with elements of subsidiarity. Many urged for market-oriented reforms: yes - less direct payments and more money for regional development, yes – reforms with no re-nationalization.
There were some opinions contradicting the mainstream views: no - controlled by individual countries, yes - more direct payment for farmers, between yes and no: agriculture should return to the competency of the countries with an EU control, budget of CAP should be cut, and a European-national shared competence would offer some solutions.
Role of the EU
The influence of the EU in different policy areas.
Here, it might have happened that some of the interviewed did not realise that grade 1 was the most positive answer…
2.5. Justice and Home Affairs?
We could experience a strong fragmentation of the evaluations. Thee were six 1 grades, seven 2-s, six 3-s, four 4-s and just two fives – so, the average is between 2 and 3.
An overwhelming majority said that the Commission should conduct this policy.
2.6. Economic policy?
Here the average was close to 2. There were twelve votes for this grade.
One comment: the EURO obliges, but national specificities should be taken into account.
Everybody, except three, said that the Commission should conduct this policy.
2.7. Employment policy?
The average is exactly 3. One interesting remark: the cross-border effect of that policy is less important, more national competence should be kept.
Three mentioned the Council, one person argued for ‘both’, and all the others said that the Commission should conduct this policy.
2.8. Social policy?
The average is closer to 3 than to 2.
2.9. Environmental policy?
Twelve people gave a 1 grade and another four gave 2. We also had three fives, one 4/5 and another 4.
Foreign and defence policy
2.10. Who should conduct the EU´s foreign policy?
It is ‘to close to call’: all options received the same scale of support.
2.11. Who should be the EU´s “Foreign Minister”?
It is ‘to close to call’: both options received the same scale of support.
2.12. Should the EP be involved in defining the EU´s foreign policy priorities?
Except two neys and one probably, all the others said yes.
2.13. Who should conduct the EU´s defence policy?
The Council was supported by nine participants, the Commission received just four yes votes and ten people said ‘both’.
2.14. Does the EU need a “Defence Minister”?
A two-third support for yes, only seven persons said no.
Three comments: yes – not separate from the chief of the foreign policy, not necessarily – at least until there is no European Army, not for the time being.
Who should it be?
There was a two-third majority for the Representative from the Commission.
2.15. Should the EP be involved in defining the EU´s defence policy priorities?
We had a huge majority of yes votes.
2.16. Are you in favour of a “European Army”?
There was a two-third majority of yes votes.
Three comments: it depends on its use and its mandate, not for the time being, small.
Handling of Competence Issues
2.17. The distribution of competences between the EU and the member states are handled by the European Court of Justice. Should this situation remain?
There was an overwhelming majority of yes votes. We had a few uncertain answers and two neys.
How should a new body dealing with competence matters look like? Which representatives should it include?
One person spoke about a new body composed of experts.
3.1. In 2000 the EU has adopted a Charter of Fundamental Rights. Should this document become legal binding?
Except one no, everybody said yes.
3.2. Should the Charter of Fundamental Rights become the preamble to a future “European Constitution”?
Everybody said yes, except one person, who claimed, “I am not a lawyer” and another one, who voted against, saying it would be ambiguous, concerning the application, the enforcing and the interpretation of human rights.
3.3. The EU is currently based on different Treaties (Euratom, EC, EU,…). Should these treaties be merged into one document?
Two neys, all the others yes.
Should the three pillar-structure maintain or should all matters be decided according to the Community method?
Both options received the same support.
An interesting comment: as long as member states feel premature to give up veto right in several issues of foreign and internal policies, the overall Community method is an illusion.
Should the constitutional provisions of the Treaties become a “European Constitution”
Just two people were against the idea; one answer was I don’t know, all the others voted in favour.
3.4. Should the enlargement process continue beyond 2007, until all European countries which wish to do so have joined?
There were four clear neys, someone said ‘later maybe’, whilst everybody else said yes.
Should also Russia be allowed to join the EU?
There were just five simple yes votes. Some people answered with ‘perhaps’, and ‘presently no’, and ‘they do not want to’ as well as ‘too early to judge’. Ten persons voted for no. One interviewed said ‘not with full membership rights’ and another one claimed for relations with special agreements.
Should also Turkey be allowed to join the EU?
Here we had 11 yes votes for Turkey. Six people said no, whilst others also elaborated their concerns: ‘I’m not convinced that Turkey belongs to Europe’, and ‘not with full membership rights’ as well as ‘only in a very dangerous case in the Near East’.
4.1. Should the new “European constitution” enter into force, when ratified by
… all member states – this version received an overwhelming majority. one-fourth of the people were in favour of the second option and only one person voted for the last one.
If the “European constitution” is ratified only by a majority of states, those states not having ratified the treaty should
… be offered a special status – this option received most of the votes that means six.
4.2. Should a future “European constitution” be ratified by a Europe-wide referendum?
There were only six yes votes and sixteen persons were against the idea. Someone argued in favour of the referendum, saying that ‘the Constitution is something that will define the ground rules of several aspects of life and should not be regarded as a simple law’, whilst another interviewed said that it would be ‘utopistic’.
4.3. Should further changes to the future “European constitution” be adopted through the “convention method”?
Here we had a strong majority in favour of the new method. Someone suggested, however, that further changes should be discussed in the European Parliament.
Budapest, 30 April 2003
István Hegedűs
Hungarian Europe Society
Chairman
Project “The Future of Europe – Our Opinion Counts”
List of the interviewed Hungarian personalities:
1. Ara-Kovács, Attila – deputy head of division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2. Barnaházi, Borbála - student, Eötvös Loránd University of Sciences
3. Fáy, Eszter – press officer, Delegation of the European Commission to Hungary
4. Fóris, György – editor, BruxInfo (on-line journal on the EU in Hungarian)
5. Gergely, Péter – main organizer, Habonim Dror (Jewish Youth Organization)
6. Gyévai, Zoltán – editor, BruxInfo (on-line journal on the EU in Hungarian)
7. Hegedűs, István – chairman, Hungarian Europe Society
8. Holzhacker, Péter – political analyst, Political Capital
9. Korber, Ágnes – editor-in-chief, Corvina (Publishing House)
10. Martin, József Péter – editor-in-chief, Figyelő (economic weekly)
11. Molnár, Tamás – student, Eötvös Loránd University of Sciences
12. Nagy, Krisztina – correspondent in Brussels, Hungarian Television
13. Nádas, Judit – trade unionist, Taverna Holding
14. Rumbold-Molnár, Eszter – deputy director of the Commercial Agency, Hungarian Embassy to Belgium
15. Seres, László - journalist, Népszabadság, and leader of Hayek Society
16. Solymos, Tamás – student, Eötvös Loránd University of Sciences
17. Szántó, Eszter – expert, office of the Ombudsman
18. Szántó, Kinga – student, Budapest University of Economic Sciences and Public Administration, and co-ordinator, Hungarian Europe Society
19. Szegedi, Gábor – student, and ‘Szentimreváros’ Association (catholic group)
20. Szelényi, Zsuzsanna – deputy director, Budapest Youth Centre of the Council of Europe
21. Szent-Iványi, István – Member of Parliament, and chairman, Committee on European Union Affairs, and deputy member of the European Convention
22. Tittmann, János - Member of Parliament, and mayor (of Dorog)
23. Vásárhelyi, Ágnes – leader of the liberal youth organisation ‘Lift’
24. Victor, András – professor
25. Zsargó, Szilvia – student organization ‘BEST’
