Survey made in Romania

Totally 35 persons were questioned from 14 different towns and cities of Romania. 17 of them were women and 18 were men. Among the respondents to the questioner we had politicians, economists, teachers, collage and university students, journalists, representatives of youth organizations, social workers, technicians, engineers, doctors.

Here is the evaluation of their answers to the questioner:

1.1. To which extent do you feel represented by the Institutions mentioned below?

The query shows that the participants to this survey feel that they are lowly represented by the enumerated institutions. 31% of the answerers think that The European Court of Justice represents them the most, which is followed by The Commission (20%), The European Council (17%) and The European Central Bank (14%). They believe that the representation of The Council (of Ministers) and The European Parliament is not that significant (11-11%).

It can be considered a quite high proportion of those respondents that don’t care about these institutions activity, mainly for 2 of these institutions, The European Court of Justice and The European Central Bank. The European Parliament’s activity is being followed with attention by most of the respondents (88%).

1.2. Should the EP have equal decision rights with the Council on all matters?

Since the establishment of the EP its meaning has increased. If the extension of its activity would depend on the people questioned during this survey, this institution would become a more important decision-making body. This is shown in their answers: 49% believes that EP should have equal decision rights with the Council.

1.3.

Half of the interviewed (50%) think that the rotation system should be maintained further on. The only thing that differs in their separate opinion is the length of the presidential cycle. Many of them believe that the presidency should be longer then half a year. There is no doubt that the rotation system is a democratic procedure, but it might not be the most efficient when the smooth activity a huge organization has to be assured. The third variant was chosen by less then ¼ of the answerers, which wouldn’t eventuate any important changes.

1.4. Should the Council give up the executive functions and be solely a legislative body (a senate) representing the member states?

60% of the respondents think it wouldn’t be vise if the Council would take part only at the decision-making process and it would have no voice in the execution process.

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?

More then half (63%) of the interviewed believe that the Council meetings should become public. For this some important amendments are needed, which would change the every day activities of the institution; because procedures are mainly orally discussions prime movers are the subservience and efficiency. Informal collations (lunches, discussions on halls) are quite important in the Council’s life. The answer to this question shows sort of a mistrust that could be called as Eastern-European syndrome.

1.6. Should nevertheless the unanimity rule be maintained?

Decisions regarding the most important issues are made unanimously, but this doesn’t mean that each member state must vote yes. If one the members sojourn or won’t vote the vote can still be positive. More then half of answerers (60%) think unanimity is acceptable, only the circle of important issues must be restricted.

1.7. Should the Commission become the EU´s exclusive executive body?

The Commission thanks to its buildup can’t cut itself adrift from national influences. Since its establishment there was cases when the politicians delegated to this institution founded their political career in their country by carrying out their nations own interests. So if only the Commission would hold the power of execution, it would be difficult to maintain its impartiality. Nevertheless the questioned group splints into two, 43% think that the Commission should become the exclusive executive body and 40% believe it shouldn’t.

1.8. How many members should the Commission in an enlarged Union have?

The majority of the respondents (77%) think that after the enlargement of Union the Commission should have as many members as many member states has the Union, one of each state. By introducing this measure only the most powerful party from each country would have the chance to become a commission member, because the government of the member state names them.

1.9. How should the President of the Commission be chosen?

It seems to be a good practice that the EP should have influence on the election of the commission president. This is proved by the fact that 54% of the answerers think the EP should elect the president.

1.10. How should the individual Commissioners be chosen?

77% believes that the institution’s president should appoint the members and the EP should approve them.

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?

Presently the Council’s activity is very complex. Its two main tasks are the law-making and budgetary issues, despite de fact that these go under their jurisdiction just partly. More than half (57%) of the answerers believe that instead of these tasks it should take care of the general development of the integration process.

Has the European Union as a vision been renewed? The respondents argued for measures that would enhance the competencies of the superstate. That is, policies enhancing the economic and social cohesion (97%), regarding taxation (80%) and the common agricultural policy (69%) would be necessary. The proportion of those who wouldn’t boggle even at the introduction of a separate tax is relatively high (57%).

The EU has an increasing influence in different policy areas. How strong this influence should be in the following policy areas?

The respondents think that the EU should have more to say in the following five issue areas (listed according to the extent of the envisaged influence):

1. Economic policy (52%)
2. Environmental policy (49%)
3. Justice and Home Affairs and Social Policy (43%)
4. Employment Policy

Evaluation of answers to questions 2.10.-4.3.

The conflicts of interest that resulted from the Iraq crisis also revealed the fact that the common foreign and security policy has been a crucial question since the establishment of the EU. In light of the answers given to the questionnaire, we can delineate the framework within which such a Committee could function optimally:

The Council and the Commission should run the foreign policy of the EU jointly, (according to 60% of the interviewees), the Foreign Minister should be Member/Secretary General of the Council (according to 60% of the respondents, again). Furthermore, according to 89% of the interviewees, the European Parliament should set the priorities of the foreign policy.

The Council and the Commission should make the defence policy of the EU jointly, (according to 63% of the subjects). There is a need for a Defense Minister (according to 77% of the respondents), this function should be fulfilled by the representative of the Council (according to 48% of the subjects). The EP should have voice in the defense policy as well (according to 83% of the subjects), and there should also be an executive body, namely a separate army (according to 80% of the interviewees).

2.17. Presently disputes regarding the distribution of competences between the EU and the member states (e.g. subsidiarity) are handled by the European Court of Justice. Should this situation remain?

According to 89% of the questioned persons, the European Court of Justice should set the competencies in the future as well.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted in 2000 should not be definitive and irrevocable (according to 57% of the subjects), but should be treated as a preamble (according to 86% of the respondents).

All the treaties adopted before should be integrated into a single document (according to 80% of the subjects), preserving the structure of three columns (according to 57% of the respondents), elaborating in this way the European Constitution (according to 86% of the inquired). This basic law should enter into force only after all the Member States have voted for it (according to 60% of the subjects). However, the states that did not vote for it should also be subject to it (according to 38% of the subjects), nevertheless enjoying a special status (according to 33% of the inquired). The European Constitution should be ratified by referendum (according to 80% of the respondents). The Constitution and later amendments should be adopted through the “convention method”(according to 69% of the respondents).

More than three quarters of the people questioned agreed to the enlargement of the Union (77%). However, there appears to be a difference in opinions regarding which of the two countries mentioned – Turkey, or Russia - should become a member. In their view, Turkey seems to have a better chance (the accession of Turkey was approved by 67% of the respondents, while in the case of Russia this percentage was 48%, and the same proportion of the interviewees considered that this country should not become part of the Union).

Conclusions

 When in the middle of the last century the Six expressed a need for community, they did not even think that after a couple of decades their initiative will grow to an organization which will extend throughout the whole continent. The political changes taken place during the end of the `80 made the Community - which was renamed EU in the meantime – a main actor of world politics. It was not able to prepare for this role and the desire of the Central and Eastern European countries to become members, too, represented a real challenge as well. The indecision and incapacity of the EU became obvious mainly during the Yugoslav War. As reflected by the opinions of the interviewees, the Community arrived at a crossroad. Either it gives up its ‘loose’ organization and accepts the role of a paternalist, if necessary ‘iron fisted’ superstate, or it tries to delay the moment of accession of the applicant countries deemed to be problematic.

The consolidation and extension of the competencies of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission

The Parliament

• Defining the priorities of the common foreign policy
• Defining the priorities of the common defense policy

The Council as a decision-making body

• The general evolution of the process of integration should be the issue of negotiations
• Decisions regarding Justice and Home Affairs
• Decision-making regarding the common foreign policy
• Creating the position of minister of foreign affairs to be filled by a Member/Secretary General of the Council
• Decision-making regarding the common defense policy
• The Defense Minister should be a representative of the Council

The Commission as an executive body

• Its president and members should be approved by the Parliament
• Economic policy
• Employment policy
• The implementation of the common foreign policy
• The implementation of the common defense policy

All Member States should take part with equal chances in law and decision-making (the maintenance of the procedure of rotation, the economic strength or the number of the inhabitants of the various countries should not influence the number of the delegates)

The Bill of Fundamental Rights

• Definitive and irrevocable
• Preamble function
• A single document – EU Constitution
• Voted by all the countries
• Ratified by popular referendum