»The Future of Europe – Our Opinion Counts«

Results of the survey conducted in Slovenia

1.1. On the question of representation[1] in the European Institutions the respondents gave most legitimacy to the European parliament (an average of 3,4 points on a 5 points scale). However the lead of the EP is not significant since the European Council comes second with an average of 3,27 points. The lack of legitimacy is clearly present on the side of the European Central Bank (2,6 on average) and the European Commission (2,93 on average) and this clearly points out the problem of the democratic deficit so often raised in the public debates.

1.2. A clear majority of the respondents (66,7 %) was in favor of granting equal rights to the European Parliament when it comes to legislative powers. The Parliament and the Council should be on equal footing when it comes to law-making.

1.3. According to a large proportion (60%) of the persons interviewed, the rotation principle of the Presidency in the Council should be maintained, but shared among different countries over a longer period. For a small country like Slovenia this principle seems to reflect the equal treatment of small and big states in the Union's institutions and should be therefore preserved. Only 13% of respondents answered that the status quo is satisfactory, but a considerable 27% would like to see an elected President of the Council.

1.4. According to the view of the 60% of the persons involved in the survey, the Council should keep its executive powers and not become only a legislative body representing the members states. The remaining opinions (40%) were in favor of such a constitutional arrangement where the Council would act only as a legislative body.

1.5. A very strong majority (73%) was in favor of making the Council's meetings public when it meets as a legislative body. This would make the decision-making procedures in the Concil more transparent, especially when compared with the fully democratic procedures in the EP. A considerable 20% of the respondents did not answer the question.

1.6. On the question whether the unanimity in the Council should still be maintained, even after enlargement, the respondents were almost entirely in favor (86,7%), but also in favor of reducing the number of areas where unanimity is required. The rule of unanimity is perceived as a tool that is of vital importance for the preservation of national interests in fields of special importance.

1.7. According to 40% of the persons included in the survey, the Commission should become the EU's exclusive executive body, but a strong 60% obviously had reservations. If we compare this results to the answers to the question 1.4. (whether the Council should only have legislative rights), we can see that the percentage in favor of a stronger Commission would like to see the Council having only legislative functions and vice versa.

1.8. Almost 50% (46,7%) of the answers regarding the number of the Commissioners were in favor of having a smaller Commission, with less then one Commissioner per state, where the rotation principle based on the sovereign equality of states should be respected. The status quo also received considerable support (⅓) whereas the third option of having a smaller Commission where nationality should not be taken into account only received 13,3% of votes. Interestingly, the fourth option (the idea of having junior and senior Commissioners) was not acceptable to any of the respondents. Presumably this is due to the impressions that this model would create a second class membership where some countries (especially the new member states) would be “less equal”.

1.9. Regarding the election procedure of the President of the Commission, the majority (60%) was clearly in favor of him being elected by the European Parliament alone. One fifth suggests that he should be appointed by the European Council and only 6,7% were in favor of creating a new institution composed of members of the EP and national parliamentarians that would be in charge of electing the President of the Commission.

1.10. An impressive 93,3% of the respondents share the belief that the members of the Commission should be appointed by its President and then confirmed by the European Parliament. There was no opinion in favor of them being appointed by the Council.

1.11. 6 out of 10 respondents would like to see the European Council reshaped in the collective Head of the European Union that would hold only general discussions on the overall development of the integration process and refrain from any interference in the “daily business” of the Union. The remaining 40% would like to keep the status quo.

2.1. All the respondents expressed their wish that the EU should have a policy aiming at economic and social cohesion between the member states.

2.2. A clear majority (80%) was also in favour of giving the European Union the competence for the harmonization of taxation policies in member states, whereas only 6,7% were against.

2.3. The introduction of an “EU-tax” that would replace national contributions to the EU budget was supported only by 20% of the respondents and over 50% were against (53,3%). The number of those that did not want to answer was relatively high, 26,7%.

2.4. One of the most debated issues in Slovenia during the pre-referendum period has been the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU. Surprisingly (or maybe not?), 60% of the persons interviewed are in favour of a EU policy in the area and 33,3% of them would like to see this policy shift back to the national governments. We can speculate that the wish to maintain the current division of competences is conditioned by a successful reform of the CAP.

2.5. The average value of 1,8 (on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 stands for “strong influence”) shows that most of the respondents are clearly in favour of increasing the EU influence in the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). More divided is the opinion who should conduct this policy, 46,7% would like to see that the Commission takes over the pillar of JHA and 40% would prefer that the Council conducts this policy.

2.6. The respondents are clearly in favour of the EU conducting the Economic policy, the average value is 1,6. Almost ¾ also share the opinion that the Commission should conduct the policy in this field.

2.7. When we come to the question on the Employment policy, the opinions are more divided. The average value is 2,47 i.e. almost exactly on the half way between the wish for a strong influence of the EU and the wish that the nation states should bear the primary responsibility. However, if the EU is responsible, then 60% of the respondents would like the Commission to be in charge and only 20% favour the Council.

2.8. The average value for the conduct of a possible Social policy is 2,07. Most of the respondents therefore favour the influence of the EU to a certain extent.

2.9. There is a clear majority of respondents who would like to see a strong EU policy in the area of environment. The average value is 1,2. This obviously shows that problems in the past have shown that  environmental problems can not be efficently tackled by single states.

2.10. Regarding the conduct of the European foreign policy a majority of the respondents would like to keep the status quo (60%) i.e. the policy should remain in the second pillar and be dealt by both the Commission and the Council. 26,7% would like to see only the Commission in charge.

2.11. According to 46,7% of those interviewed the “European Foreign Minister” should be wither a member or the vice-president of the Commission. 26,7% would like to see a member of the Council be responsible for its conduct and the same proportion did not want to express their opinion on the matter.

2.12. 100% of the respondents believe that the European Parliament should participate in the formulation of the EU’s foreign policy priorities. This clearly shows that the Parliament is perceived as the Institution which lacks competences in the area while being the most democratic body at the EU level.

2.13. ⅔ of the respondents would like to see that the Council conducts the Defence policy and only 13,3% believe that the Commission should do it. One fifth would like to see the cooperation of both Institutions in these matters.

2.14. There is an obvious division on the question whether the EU needs a Defence Minister. 46,7% believe that the EU currently does not need such a post and 40% believe that it clearly does.

2.14.1. If a Defence Minister was to be appointed 46,7% of the respondents believe that he/she should be a representative of the Council and only 13,3% that he/she should represent the Commission. Since the question was directly linked to the previous on the Defence policy, 40% of persons included in the survey did not answer because they believe that the EU does not need a Defence policy.

2.15. Again, a clear majority (93,3%) of the respondents would like the European Parliament to be involved in the formulation of the defence policy priorities.

2.16. A majority is in favour of the creation of the “European Army” (60%), but there is also a strong opposition by 26,7% of the respondents.

2.17. There is no doubt and no opposition expressed in regard to the function of the European Court of Justice. 93,3% of those interviewed believe that it should handle the disputes regarding the distribution of competences between the EU and the member states also in the future.

3.1. All the respondents would like to see the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights becoming legally binding. The discussions within the Convention’s Working group II also came to the same conclusion and it seems that this demand is commonly shared.

3.2. Additionally to the previous question, a predominant majority (86,7%) would also like that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is placed in the Preamble of a future European constitution.

3.3. According to most of the respondents the current legal structure of the Union is unnecessarily complicated and should therefore be simplified. 86,7% believe that this should be done by merging all existing Treaties (EURATOM, EC, EU…) into one coherent document.

3.3.1. The opinion of 60% of the persons included in the survey is that the three pillars structure should be abolished and voting procedures unified. On the other hand, the remaining 40% believe that the voting procedures should stay the same.

3.3.2. All of those who answered (73,3%) the question on the division of the future Constitutional treaty in two parts (the Constitution and the operational treaty), believe that the constitutional provisions of the current Treaties should become the European constitution and the rest put in to an operational part.

3.4. A slight majority (53,3%) of the respondents answered that the coming enlargement should not be the last one and that in the future all those European countries that show the will to join the Union should be considered as candidates. A significant proportion of 20% is against further enlargement.

3.4.1. The widely debated issue of Turkey joining the EU follows the same patterns among the opinions of the persons included in the survey. 46,7% are in favour of a future enlargement including Turkey, whereas 26,7% are clearly against.

3.4.2. When it comes to the question whether Russia should also be considered for membership a slight majority (53,3%) is against the idea. Only 13,3% would support a further enlargement allowing Russia to join the EU. The remaining respondents do not want to express their opinion on the matter.

4.1. According to a vast majority (80%) of the respondents the European constitution should only enter into force when ratified by all the member states. However, the remaining 20% believe that this should be the case when it is ratified by ⅔ of the member states.

4.1.1. Those 20% that believe that the European Constitution should enter into force when ratified by ⅔ of the member states, also share the opinion that the member states rejecting the Constitution should be given the opportunity to leave the Union.

4.2. The only question in the survey that ended with an even result concerns the idea of having a Europe-wide referendum. There are 50% in favor and the other half against. The idea in itself is regarded as very problematic seems there is no uniform method of carrying out such a referendum. This is also reflected by the division inside the Convention when it comes to the issue of a Europe-wide referendum.

4.3. A clear majority (66,7%) is in favour of keeping the current “convention method” for the adoption of possible amendments in the future.

NOTES BY THE AUTHOR:

The survey was carried out in December 2002 and January 2003. By the end of January we have received 30 completed questionnaires which also figure as a sample for this report.