|
Overall it is something of a disappointment to the researchers that they could only assemble a small sample of validated opinions on the issues put forward. However, it is believed that the sample of 79 has some value, and the research some limited merit, due to the depth of the individual issues explored. That is, while the sample is small, each respondent was asked several questions about discrete areas of law and policy that have European Union scope, and that presenting the responses for each sector for comparison builds a fairly good benchmark about the issues at hand (which are admittedly limited in their scope).
While there were a limited number of respondents the data they submitted comprises a total of 3,900 data points across the seven broad areas covered. The researchers consider that this fairly large set of answers tends to support a more reliable dataset, or at least comparable to, a smaller number of questions asked of a larger group.
Two central issues for the researchers were whether the citizens of the EU, or the ‘Peoples of Europe’, support the general policy goals of the European Union (without describing the source of the policy), and whether, if an EU element were introduced, this would lead to a diminishing, or even reversal, of such support. For example, the respondents were asked whether they supported equality for women in the workplace. They were then asked whether the EU should be involved in issuing regulations on discrimination on the basis of gender, age or disability in the workplace.
It was expected that such questions would reveal quite large shifts between the two sets of questions, to show an anti-EU bias. But, in fact, such movements were quite small, and in some cases the swing was in the opposite direction expected – that is to say that the respondents showed a pro-EU swing. There was no subject area where approval for a measure turned to dismissal when an EU element was introduced. The same is true for the opposite scope: no dismissal of an area turned to approval with EU involvement (but very few question areas had negative connotations).
Taken over the whole survey very few areas proved to be controversial, with the vast majority of questions having a two-thirds or greater weighting from the respondents. That is, very few of the questions elicited responses that considerably split the opinions of the respondents. Where there was controversy over an issue the respondents involved were invariably from the UK segment of the study.
Three questions directly split the UK respondents, with a 50:50 vote. The general issues were:
Consumer protection, question A: should the UK restrict Sunday opening hours for shops.
Employment, question C: should there be a cap placed on the number of hours employees can work per week.
Employment, question L: should the EU take action to protect workers, against the legislation of the member states.
For the first issue it is suggested that as this matter does not have EU scope (as explained in the analysis in that section), and the respondents did not attribute EU participation to the issue, then the result is really a matter of internal policy for the member state, rather than one that illustrates the attitudes of member state citizens to EU policy.
The latter two questions certainly do have EU scope, but are the subject of mixed signals from the respondents.
When asked a straight-forward question about a cap on working hours the respondents from the UK are split 50:50. However, if a health and safety issue is introduced into the same issue, in an more elaborate manner (Employment, question D), then support for a cap on working hours jumps to 76%. When an EU element to this issue is coupled with a health and safety proviso (Employment, question F) support for such measures hits 63%, exactly halfway between the initial split vote, and the introduction of a health and safety element.
This appears to show an anti-EU bias between question D and F, but also that justification for a measure with EU scope can generate support from the previously split position.
For the final controversial point (Employment, question L) we are essentially asking whether EU institutions should be able to overrule member state legislation. Something that goes to the heart of a nation’s concept of sovereignty. Unfortunately, with this question, there is not a direct question that asks whether workers should be able to enforce their (nationally derived) rights, through the courts of the member states if necessary. To which we would expect an overwhelming yes – putting in question any opposition to a ‘higher’ court (the ECJ) finding against a member state. This would have been an interesting opportunity for comparison, that has, regrettably, been missed.
What can be discerned in this area is that there is a high level of support for regulation in the area of employment, and that includes support for legislation developed by institutions of the European Union. Examples of this are evidenced in the very high levels of support given to women’s rights in the workplace (from both UK and EU respondents), an area that has extensive EU involvement.
A further question in the survey had only a narrow margin of support. That concerned whether the EU should be able to take enforcement action against states that blocked the import of goods from other member states (Business, question F). Of the UK respondents only 56% supported such measures. This small margin is in contrast to a directly applicable example, France’s refusal to lift a ban on UK-produced beef (Business, question E), where 63% of UK respondents thought that France was acting unfairly. However, one of the few recourses the UK had in this situation was to have the European Commission take enforcement action against France.
In contrast one of the areas that saw a pro-EU swing in support was that involving fast-track extradition procedures. When asked about such matters (Policing, security and defence, question D) without an EU element the UK respondents had a 70% approval rating and the EU respondents 68%. However, when this was coupled with an EU element (Policing, security and defence, question E) support rose to 78% and 72% respectively. Reasons that may have happened are discussed in the analysis for the Policing, security and defence section.
Similarly, when asked about action on climate change (Climate change, question A) 74% of UK respondents and 96% of EU respondents thought it was a serious issue that required joint international action. Introducing an EU aspect to the question saw UK support rise (Climate change, question B) to 82% (EU support remained at 96%).
The impression left on the researchers by the survey results is that, in the limited areas covered, those surveyed supported EU policy goals – even though they did not realise that these policies were EU-centric. When an EU element was introduced, support often declined (by a small amount), for what was on the surface the same issue. An element that may effect this decline could be merely introducing the terms ‘regulation’ or ‘legislation’ into the question, or there could be a geniunie anti-EU feeling involved. Finding the basis for this decline, however, will have to be the subject of another study, as there is no data in this research to help illuminate the issue one way or the other.
An additional impression is that support for an EU-based measure is increased if a rational, objective justification for it can be shown to exist. For example restricting working hours on the basis of health and safety. It could be that any inherent bias towards the EU could be countered by more information being available to EU citizens so that they can discern the pros and cons involved in a more informed manner. Particularly in the UK much debate about the EU is driven by minority political parties that have an inherent eurosceptic agenda, and have only the desire to portray the EU in a negative light. This position is not countered by the mainstream political parties because, on the whole, membership of the EU and support for its policies are not issues that divide them. Thus the public debate is largely led by the anti-EU campaign.
Perhaps if the UK media devoted as much attention to the EU as it does to the USA the public would be as informed about the policy and goals of the EU as it is about the arcane processes of a year-long US presidential campaign and selection process?
It is respectfully submitted that with greater exposure to the processes and interlinked nature of the EU member states the citizens of the member states would become more informed and supportive of the EU. Thus appreciating their status as ‘the peoples of Europe’ they may also accept their role as ‘Citizens of the European Union’.
It is hoped that the issues exposed in this research will help address the perceived imbalance in the dabate over the role of the Europen Union and its interaction with the member states, by introducing readers to the underlying legal basis for the measures discussed.
| 
