Analysis
Part of the rationale for this survey was to find out the level of knowledge about the European Union amongst the subjects, and whether there was any perceptable anti-EU bias. Given the bad press human rights measures tend to receive in the UK the answers of the UK respondants arguably addresses both of these concerns. As to the factual basis of the Human Rights Act 1998 in UK law, this is derived from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – mentioned in the question posed to the EU repondants – which is an instrument of the Council of Europe.
To clarify this issue, the Council of Europe is entirely separate from the European Union. Although there is overlap in the membership of both organisations, the Council of Europe is considerably larger with 47 member states that include Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey (none of which are EU member states). Additionally there is no connection between the Council of Europe and the Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers).
However, without further human-rights associated questions it is impossible to say whether the UK respondants are sceptical of such measures and blame such on the EU because of an inherent bias, or simply took a guess because they did not know the answer. It is suggested, balancing this question with the issues that arise elswhere in this survey, that there is no anti-human rights sentiment in the UK - if taken in gross - because the respondants support measures of equality that are also largely human rights derived. It is admitted, simultaneously, that individual instances, that gain media attention, exercising human rights-based law may prick prejudices against the measures as a whole, but are not representative.
The EU respondants to question A are to be congratulated for knowing the derivation of the ECHR, or at least taking a better guess. There is the possibility that the EU respondants are more knowledgeable about this issue than their UK counterparts, but with such a small sample this is impossible to truly measure.
While the European Union has been responsible for many legislative measures that give citizens rights, especially those exercising equality, it has also recieved some criticism on this front. Amongst the most prominant of these are the Viking and Laval labour relations cases that came before the European Court of Justice, the decisions in which arguably undermine the ECHR art 11(1) rights of freedom of association. This potentially sets up a tension between the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), with a lack of clarity resulting in the national courts of the EU’s member states.
Craig and De Búrca suggest that there are many criticism of the ECJ in this area, both that it has used human rights to expand its area of competence, and that it has ignored human rights and concentrated on the market provisions of the treaties that establish its power – concepts that are directly opposed. Arguably a case that illustrates this is Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v Stephen Grogan and other, where a case centred on the provision of abortion services is settled on an economic basis – where many would claim that it is an issue of human rights (perhaps even those on both sides would agree).
In direct relation to Viking and Laval it is possible that the ECtHR would take a contrary view to the ECJ, and that is evidenced in the ECtHR’s decisions in Demir and Baykara v Turkey (Application 34503/97 - right to collective bargaining) and Enerji Yapi-Yol Sen v Turkey (Application 68959/01 – right to take industrial action).
The ECtHR is unable to directly review the decisions of the ECJ, since the European Union is not a signatory to the ECHR. The possibility of EU accession to the treaty has been raised, and enabled within the ECHR by revision to art 59 by Protocol 14 art 17(1). While there was a corresponding provision in the EU Constitutional Treaty, this was never ratified.
Question B is unrelated to human rights, but appears to show that the citizens of the EU largely see the value in joint representation in international relations with other states and regions. Arguably this is very well expressed in the joint action and negotiating position taken by the EU and member states in relation to climate change – which is discussed elsewhere in this analysis. It is also plausible to suggest that the member states cannot help but present a common front to external elements, due to the nature of the single market and immigration controls. That is, to comply with import criteria or product safety in one member state is usually to comply with such for all member states. Entry to one market enables entry to all, prohibition in one may well mean prohibition in all (arts 23-30 EC Treaty). Further discussion of such measures is available in the consumer protection section.
With regard to treaty participation the EU is a signatory in its own right, as well as the member states, to the Kyoto Protocol. The international scope of the EU is further evidenced through its direct participation in international discussion via groups like the G20
| 
