Debate on the future of the European Union

Debate on the future of the European Union

On January 9, 2020, some leaders of the European Parliament, including Guy Verhofstadt, Manfred Weber, Iratxe García Pérez, Ska Keller and Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the Liberal, Christian Democratic, Socialist, Green and Left factions submitted a motion for a resolution to the European Parliament for which proposed a conference on the future of Europe.

The reason for the proposal was to deal with the internal and external challenges facing Europe, which could not be foreseen when the Lisbon Treaty was adopted, and the major crises suffered by the Union show that reforms are needed in many management areas.

According to the proposal, an open forum should be provided in the garden of the conference for the various participants, without predetermining the outcome of the discussion or its scope. For example, the main areas of discussion would be:

• European values, fundamental rights and freedoms,
• the democratic and institutional characteristics of the EU,
• environmental challenges and the climate crisis,
• social justice and equality,
• economic and employment issues, including taxation,
• digital transformation,
• security and the EU's role in the world;

Originally, the conference was to start on May 9, 2020, Europe Day (the anniversary of the Schumann Declaration), but this was postponed partly due to the COVID-19 epidemic that broke out in the meantime and partly due to the dispute over the management of the conference, and now it is that Starts on May 9, 2021. The leaders of the European Union, David Sassoli of the European Parliament, António Costa of the Council and Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission, signed a joint statement on March 10, 2021, rescheduling the start of the conference on the specified date.

According to the statement, the aforementioned leaders want citizens to join the dialogue and express their opinion on the future of Europe. They undertake to listen to the Europeans and, following the recommendations of the conference, take steps to implement the proposals in full respect of their powers and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality contained in the EU Treaties.

Within the framework of the conference, events will take place at the national, regional and local level, where civil organizations, scientific institutions, national parliaments, as well as the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee and social partners (trade unions, employers' organizations) will be given space. to express their views on the future of Europe.

The European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission will be equally represented in the body managing the consultation: each institution may send three representatives and a maximum of four observers to the body.

The final results of the conference will be summarized in a report, and the three institutions involved in the management will examine how the contents of the report can be implemented in their respective areas of competence.

It should be mentioned that three years earlier, the question of the future of Europe was raised in a different approach. In 2017, the Commission published a white paper on the future of Europe under the signature of Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, in which he outlined five scenarios:

1. Everything goes on (current trends continue, which means a slow centralization process)
2. Only the single market (further centralization will stop, opinions will differ on issues such as migration, security and defence, with negative consequences, for example that the free movement of people and services will be hindered)
3. Who wants more, does more (some countries cooperate more closely than others, those who expand cooperation do better)
4. Less efficient (in a narrower area, but integration is increasing, the union will be more efficient in this area)
5. Much more together (this would essentially create the structure of a federal state without the common (15-20%) budget of the federal states, essentially everything would be handled from Brussels, from immigration to foreign and defense policy, with very positive effects)

The above scenarios show that four years ago, the future of Europe was discussed on a much broader scale than the current framework outlined above, although the current statement also indicates that any question can be raised during the consultation.

Of course, before anything can be said about the future of cooperation, it is necessary to examine what the results of the cooperation so far and what are the disadvantages, on which, of course, different political trends have different opinions. In the following, we will express our criticism from the perspective of the wide range of experts and politicians who saw the union's centralization efforts and the introduction of the euro as a problem from the very beginning, i.e. from the drafting of the Maastricht Convention in 1992.

The European Economic Community (EEC) worked well

The EEC, established in 1957, achieved significant results, many countries developed rapidly, integration between countries strengthened, and at the same time they had the tools, such as the possibility of their own monetary and fiscal policy, with which individual countries could intervene in accordance with their specific problems economy. In a separate clause, the agreement prescribed the balance of the trade balance (actually the balance of payments) (that is, that one country does not become indebted to the other).

The Maastricht Convention created an economically dysfunctional system

Back in the 1970s, when the leaders of the union were thinking about the continuation of integration, three reports were drawn up, the Werner, Marjolin and MacDougall reports, whose purpose was to assess the feasibility of integration from the budgetary point of view. This was done by examining existing unitary (such as France) and federal (such as the United States) budgets, notably the size of the joint budget and the proportion of income redistribution. The result of these studies was that in order to introduce a common currency, at least 5-7 percent of GDP would have to be centralized and redistributed, while the federal state requires 15-20% centralization and redistribution of income (supporting the weaker). Moreover, the Marjolin report also added that the prerequisite for integration is for the population to feel that they belong to the Union rather than to their own country, and to this end even proposed the introduction of a common European unemployment fund. However, the Maastricht Convention and its most important consequence, the introduction of the euro, lacked any economic basis, it was created solely for political interests. The French were afraid of the economic power and independence of the reunified Germany and wanted to bind it to themselves with the euro. Others saw the euro as a means of (forcing) further integration and therefore supported its introduction.

The problems of the euro

A common currency can only be introduced between countries that respond to external influences in the same way, this is called an optimal currency area. Everyone was aware that the European Union did not meet this criterion, that the euro was introduced not for economic reasons, but for political reasons. The result was that the common currency was overvalued for southern European countries and undervalued for northern European countries, which resulted in foreign trade imbalances and indebtedness for southern countries. The economic crisis of 2008 also showed that the euro area cannot react adequately to external shocks. The current borrowing of 750 billion euros temporarily alleviates this problem, but in a few years the problems will start again. Many proposals have been made to remedy the situation, but no one has yet been found that would satisfy all stakeholders.

Lack of democratic control

In the political structure of the Union, in principle, the Council of the Heads of Government determines its political direction, the Commission has an executive role and the Parliament has a controlling role. In practice, the initiator of the laws is the European Commission and, increasingly, the pressure exerted by the Parliament. The role of the Council (heads of government) has been weakened, the principle of unanimity has been abolished in many areas, and in more and more political areas that have a significant impact on individual countries (e.g. climate policy), decisions are from the outset included in the scope of decisions requiring a qualified majority, thus also against the fundamental interests of individual countries decisions can be made. At the same time, those who make real decisions (Commission, Parliament) are not responsible for their decisions. A national government can be replaced if the voters are dissatisfied, but not the organizations mentioned. This situation was euphemistically called "democracy deficit" at the convention held in 2002-2003, but since then the situation has worsened a lot.

Neoliberal economic policy

In essence, the Maastricht Treaty established a neoliberal economic policy into law, as a result of which the development of the entire Union is slow, it is difficult to react to external influences, and what is the main problem, the once broad middle class is eroding, more and more people are sliding towards poverty. The situation is worst in the indebted southern European member states, which are increasingly falling apart as a result of economic policy, their economic growth is slow, and their unemployment is high.

Demographic crisis

The union as a whole cannot reproduce itself demographically. For this reason, some countries encourage immigration, while others try to promote the growth of their own population with various family policy measures. These two perceptions result in significant political tension between the individual countries.

Problems of immigrant integration

It has been proven that Muslim immigrants cannot be integrated into Western societies, they create independent, parallel and territorially separated societies. The Western European countries with a high immigration rate cannot cope with this situation, and moreover, they do not want to stop illegal immigration, and they even want to force some of the economic migrants to the Central and Eastern European member states with a redistribution system. This situation creates tension between Western European and Central Eastern European member states.

The problem of creating a common foreign policy

The 27 member states have very different historical experiences, and as a result their foreign policy interests and fears are also very different. The leadership of the Union has long been calling for the Union to speak "with one voice" to third countries, but it is difficult to determine what it should say, because the interests of certain regions of the Union (for example, North and South, East and West) are completely different. According to public opinion research, for example, the interventionist policy of the European Commission and the Parliament (mainly towards Russia and China) is not supported by the European public.

Ideological differences

In Western Europe, as in North America, a cultural revolution is taking place, during which traditional European values ​​are being questioned and replaced by far-left ideologies such as gender theory (the introduction of social genders instead of traditional biological sexes), the questioning of the right to exist of nation-states, Europe the rejection of his Christian heritage and the negative portrayal of the entire European history and culture in general. This ideology started from the extreme left (Frankfurt school), but today it has become dominant in the socialist-social-democratic parties in Western Europe, and has even spread to the center-right parties. However, this ideology has not yet gained significant influence in the former socialist countries, so there is significant tension in this area between the western and eastern halves of the Union.

The leadership of the union wants to solve the mentioned problems and other tensions not mentioned here by further centralizing the decision-making system, while the leaders of the individual countries bear the real responsibility for the decisions. In essence, they have their eye on the creation of a federalist state, the conditions of which are lacking in Europe. Why is it easy to understand if we compare the characteristics of a federal state with the characteristics of the European Union.

A common language . Almost as many languages ​​are spoken in the Union as there are member states. The language spoken by most people is English, but with the exception of the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, English is only understood and spoken by a narrow circle of the population. As a result, the average European simply cannot participate in a pan-European communication space, so he has very little knowledge of what is happening in countries other than his home country. The lack of a common language to this extent also means that it is not possible to broadly discuss the union's common affairs at the citizen level, and knowledge of the actions and views of potential leaders is lacking for the democratic election of the union's leaders. For this reason, the lack of a common language is one of the main obstacles to the realization of a democratic, federal state.

A shared history. The common history and its result, the common historical memory, play a specific role in the cohesive force of an allied state or a unified state. At the center of the common history are usually the events that define the history of each country, such as the founding of the country, wars won or revolutions. In European history, however, such a common positive historical memory is rare, since in the last thousand years, individual European countries have fought bloody wars against each other on numerous occasions, and what was a victory to be celebrated for one, is a painful defeat for the other.

Common culture

If there is something common among the peoples of Europe, it is the cultural heritage, which begins with Greek culture, continues with Roman state organization and law, the artistic works of medieval Christianity, the huge cathedrals and, later on, the scientific achievements of Europe. If we build on the common cultural heritage that is positively judged by everyone and that distinguishes Europe from other continents, then it would indeed be possible to find mutually accepted foundations on which closer cooperation can be built. However, at the moment, the European leadership, not Europe, wants to strengthen real common cultural roots, and rather the intention of destruction is evident by elevating the ideology of the Frankfurt school, "kulturmarximus" to the EU value system. Today, the European left, the "cultural marxists" and the right representing Euro-Atlantic corporations, for different reasons, both reject European traditional values, thus also constituting one of the biggest obstacles to European integration.

Common values : Common values ​​play an important role in the cohesion of a united or federal state. In practice, in the European Union, values ​​can be found in two forms. First, as the EU values ​​declared by the EU treaties, and secondly, as the values ​​that are explored and analyzed by the EU's public opinion research institute, Eurobarometer. The so-called European values ​​appear for the first time in the 1983 Solemn Declaration, and the 1992 Maastricht Convention already incorporates the 1950 Rome Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into the EU treaty system. The Eurobarometer surveys partly confirm the values ​​set out in the EU treaties, but partly point out that Europeans are much more conservative than their leaders and leading media, for example they stick much more to their own country and its traditions than to the general values ​​of the European Union. At the same time, the population can have a dual identity. The ties that bind people to their own country (language, culture, ancestors, history) are different from the ties that bind them to the European Union (free movement, peace between member states, economic strength of the union, etc.).

Common interest vis-à-vis other parts of the world . In the case of a unitary or federal state, the relationship with the outside world is usually quite clear, regardless of which party leads the country. From this point of view, the situation in the European Union is quite different, since in the last thousand years, the current EU member states defined their interests directly against each other, it was a rare case when Europeans faced non-Europeans. At the moment, the European Union has no external enemies, the confrontation with Russia or China rather expresses the desire of the United States, or rather of some of its ruling circles, to prevent the union, and especially Germany, from forming a close economic union with Russia. In matters of foreign policy and military policy, the member states of the European Union are quite divided, which makes it difficult to create a common foreign and defense policy. The situation is similar in matters of foreign economic policy. The interests of the developed Nordic countries interested in high tech exports differ significantly from the interests of the Southern European countries with significant agricultural and consumer goods production.

After all, taking those identity-forming elements into account, the conclusion can be drawn that if we want to achieve lasting European cooperation, we have to find a solution that is satisfactory for everyone, and this cannot necessarily be a federal system, because neither the economic nor the social conditions for it are given.

Despite this, the European leadership continues to push for further integration. The views developed during the discussions so far can actually be classified into three large groups:

(1) One of them, which is imposed by the European, or rather Euro-Atlantic elite (background power), is the federal state, i.e. the United States of Europe. Such an idea was - among others - outlined by Joschka Fischer in a speech held at Humboldt University in 2000, when he was still German foreign minister.

(2) The other form of integration proposed mainly by French politicians is the union of nation-states, some kind of confederation solution, in which case the sovereignty of the nation-state is largely preserved and a new (federal) state is not created.

(3) Finally, a completely loose form is free trade, which was proposed by, for example, UKIP (United Kingdom Independent Party), and which the British achieved for themselves with their exit from the European Union.

A number of transitions can be imagined between the above "pure" forms, when cooperation extends only to certain areas of mutual interest. These shapes have been given many names, for example Europe according to the menu, concentric circles, Olympic rings, variable geometry, multi-speed Europe. Legally, the "flexible Europe" of Bruno S. Frey and Reiner Eichenberger was developed, where the essence of the proposal is that integration takes into account the economic development of the new member states and covers only those areas that are beneficial for the new member state. With the progress of catching up, cooperation can extend to more and more areas.

Let's look at some of these suggestions in more detail.

Europe as a federal state. A European federation, or a single European state, is not a new idea, first proposed by William Penn in 1693, then reiterated by Victor Hugo in 1849 and Coudenhove-Kalergi in 1926.

The founding fathers of the European Union also thought of a federal state, but at that time they did not consider this a realistic proposition, which is why they only refer to an "ever closer union" in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome. This question was raised again by Joschka Fischer in 2000 in his presentation at Humboldt University. He argued that the institutions that were created for the needs of six countries no longer function properly, they do not meet, for example, a common foreign and defense policy in the conditions of a globalized world, and they do not meet the requirements of a democratic political system either.

He proposed a bicameral parliamentary system in which one chamber would consist of elected representatives who are also members of national parliaments, while the other chamber would be a kind of senate, similar to the US Senate.

At the same time, he was of the opinion that although it is true that, with the Maastricht Treaty, fundamental elements of national sovereignty such as the national currency, internal and external security came under the competence of the EU institutions, this does not mean the abolition of nation states.

Other supporters of the European federation argue primarily against the nation-state, accusing nation-states of being the cause of wars, of being responsible for the cultural, political and economic oppression of minorities, and at the same time alienating citizens with their large, centralized bureaucratic organizations.

The European federation, or the United States of Europe, is supported by many political groups, public figures and businessmen. The Union of European Federalists, the German philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas and others have developed specific ideas for the constitution of a European federal state.

A confederation of nation states. The confederation of nation states is basically a French idea, proposed by De Gaulle in the early 1960s. According to him, the main task of a French politician is to protect the French nation, which looks back on 2,000 years of history, which requires strong state institutions. Cooperation between European states is necessary, but it must be achieved through intergovernmental means and not supranational organizations. De Gaulle's ideas were written down by Christian Fouchet, the French ambassador to Denmark, and this was the Fouchet plan, of which two versions were made, in 1961 and 1962.

According to the Fouchet plan, the union would have four institutions, the Council, with the participation of the heads of state, the Council of Ministers, with the participation of the ministers, the Political Committee, in which the delegates of the member states would participate, and the European Parliament, which would have an advisory role.

Decision preparation and the implementation of decisions are the responsibility of the Political Committee, and the decision itself would be made in the Council, namely with unanimity. If a country is not present at a decision or abstains, then the decisions do not apply to it, but it can join at any time and then the decisions become binding on it as well. The Union would have a budget, drawn up by the Political Committee and approved by the Council. Otherwise, the union would also have legal personality, that is, it could enter into agreements on behalf of the union in areas for which it is authorized. The union would be open to countries that share the union's values ​​(protection of human dignity, democracy, respect for human rights, social justice).

The French, especially in their right-wing political forces, are still close to this De Gaulle vision. When Joschka Fischer presented his views on a European federation at Humboldt University in 2000, then French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin reacted sharply, saying that the French people would never accept a status such as the status of individual states in the United States or that of the provinces. in Germany. "There are strong, vital nations for whom national identity is important, and this is the value of our continent," said the French prime minister. At the same time, he did not want to withdraw the competences that had already become community, that is, he wanted to keep the union according to the Maastricht-Amsterdam agreements.

Flexible cooperation. Within the framework of flexible cooperation, individual countries retain their independence, but can participate on a voluntary basis in various EU projects, such as industrial cooperation, building infrastructure, etc. Such a form of cooperation already exists today, for example in the field of industry with Airbus. Goods, services, capital and labor flow in a controlled manner. This form of cooperation would require a minimum joint budget of around 1%. Bruno S. Frey and Reiner Eichenberger, professors at the University of Zurich, developed this idea in more detail, using the example of the Swiss cantons as a basis. The most important idea of ​​this proposal is that it does not aim for some kind of homogeneity, it does not aim to create an "ever closer union". This form of cooperation has already been suggested by various names, such as "changing geometry", "Olympic circles" or "Europe a'la carte".

Europe as a free trade zone. A free trade zone is a type of trade integration where the contracting countries do not apply tariffs or trade restrictions against each other. An important difference compared to the customs union is that the countries of the zone do not apply a uniform customs policy towards economies outside the zone. Currently, there are many free trade areas around the world, some of the more well-known of them are the North American Free Trade Area, NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), MERCOSUR covering Latin America, AFTA (ASEAN Free Trade Area) bringing together Asian countries and South African COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa).

The transformation of the European Union into a free trade zone was primarily advocated by the English UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) and it succeeded in getting its country to leave the union, which is increasingly centralizing powers.

An English Eurosceptic group, the Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB), proposes a model that would build the cooperation of European countries on the willingness of the European people to cooperate and not on the intentions of the European political and economic elite. They are convinced that lasting European cooperation can only be built on the will of the participating nations. Everyone would only participate in cooperation in areas that are in their interest.

However, it is not only Eurosceptics who see the free trade zone as a solution, but also those professionals who otherwise vote for integration, but see the contradiction between political intentions and economic-political realities.

According to Paul de Grauwe, professor of economics at the University of Leuven: "A political union is the logical end point of a currency union. But, if the political union is not established, the Eurozone cannot survive in the long term. Now that nobody wants a political union, one can think about whether it was a good idea to create a currency union. I hardly dare to say that the monetary union will fail in the longer term. Not in the next year, but in a good 10-20 year time horizon. There is no example of a currency union surviving without a political union. They all collapsed. External shocks will inevitably occur and then the monetary union without a political union will prove to be quite fragile. With the exception of Don Quixotes like Guy Verhofstadt, I don't see anyone who wants a political union... A large free trade area remains the only realistic alternative for Europe. It is an illusion that we can create a political union in the near future"

Localization. The economics of localization is based on the statistically proven fact that the majority of human needs can be economically satisfied locally (in the former interpretation of the word), and long-distance trade can be justified primarily by differences in natural geography and the expansion of the range. According to this view, it is particularly important that public services (railways, telecommunications, energy supply, water supply, education, health care), as well as agricultural land and the extraction of raw materials are fundamentally owned by local communities. Localization is not anti-trade simply because it aims to create diversified local economies and not force all companies to engage in self-exploitative international competition.

European Empire. The adoption of the Lisbon Treaty actually transforms the European Union into an empire, which Manuel Barroso himself, the former President of the Commission, drew attention to when he compared the European Union to an empire in an interview. With this analogy, he primarily wanted to defend himself against the fact that many compared the EU to a superstate after the Treaty of Lisbon. Although this characterization is used by Barroso in his university lectures, when he explains the structure of the union, it actually fits the situation of the union after the Treaty of Lisbon very well. The union cannot be compared to a federal state because federal states (for example, the United States or Germany) have a democratic political system, a common language, strong social solidarity, a unified foreign policy and their central budget is 20-25 percent of GDP , to highlight only a few important features of a federal state. The European Union does not have any of these, but it is trying to create a strong central decision-making system. If the current trends continue, the union will increasingly transform from a cooperation of equal nation states into an empire. The main driving force behind this trend is partly the far-left movements that want to abolish nation-states, and partly a narrow business and political elite (the background power), whose will is transformed into EU rules by the right- and left-wing mainstream banks.

A socially sensitive empire based on solidarity. The left and green groups of the European Parliament supported the Lisbon Treaty, but objected to its neoliberal character. Similarly, the European Trade Union Confederation also approved the Treaty of Lisbon, on the grounds that it makes the social values ​​of the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding. In fact, the left and the greens would support a European Union that would in some form emphasize social justice and more strongly the protection of the environment. Such a formation could be called a socially sensitive empire, because the decision-making powers centralized by the Treaty of Lisbon would remain, and in fact the centralization would continue to increase, the system would not be more democratic, but at the same time a redistribution would be brought into the system that would significantly reduce the existing income, wealth differences.

Multi-speed Europe. "Multi-speed Europe" includes the idea that the ultimate goal of European cooperation is a unified or federal state, each country strives for this, but not everyone can achieve this state at the same time, some move towards this goal faster, others slower they are progressing. In reality, this "multiple speeds" has been realized, since, for example, only 19 of the EU's 27 member states are members of the Eurozone, 22 are members of the Schengen Agreement, and Austria, Sweden, Finland, and Ireland are not members of NATO. So there is an example of multiple speeds, the question is whether this should be seen as a negative development, one that leads to further integration after a while, or as a natural and possibly permanent state that expresses the economic and social situation of individual countries, national interests.

Our own suggestion

Today's debates about the future of the European Union take place primarily at the level of slogans, we would like to raise this debate to the level of realities and feasibility as far as possible in a fundamentally political debate environment. In our opinion, of the above variations, only the concept of the cooperation of nation states can be implemented permanently, but we are also interested in the opinion of the wider society, which is why we prepared a questionnaire, partly for citizens and partly for think tanks of research institutes, in which we ask for their opinion as well.

We ask that you express your opinion on European cooperation based on the above and your other knowledge by answering the attached questionnaires.

                                                                   THE

                                       What kind of Europe do we want?

                              Questionnaire for citizens

In connection with the British withdrawal and other problems of the Union, the debate on the future of the European Union has been put back on the agenda, which includes many issues, some of which fundamentally affect citizens. The association of conservative civil organizations, EuCET, would like to find out the public's opinion on the issues we consider to be the most important, which is why we are addressing you with this questionnaire.

Since the questions are too complicated to expect yes or no answers in the questionnaire, for each question we have outlined the problem and the possible answers, which are based on the positions of the debates so far, but we also give the opportunity for a free answer to the question.

1. The political form of the union

The first and most important and nowadays the most controversial question is whether the Europe of the future should be based on federal foundations, similar to the political system of the United States or the Federal Republic of Germany, or should we develop relations along the lines of common interests in addition to the independence of the nation-states (Europe of nations) .

What is your opinion?

I would prefer the federal form of government

B would rather choose a union of nation states

I recommend another form C, until:

2. the common budget

As is generally known, at the moment some member states of the union pay one percent of their GDP into the common budget of the union, from which the EU policies are then financed. It is also known that certain forms of cooperation determine the size of the common budget. In federal states, the common budget is 15-20 percent of GDP. So if we want a federal Europe, then we have to settle for paying 15-20 percent of our income into the common fund, from where it will be redistributed along the lines of EU policies, probably to support and catch up with the less developed countries, because with a federal form of government, that would be most important task.

What percentage of your income would you give up in order to catch up with the less developed regions of the Union?

Possible note:

3. Possible forms of cooperation

Based on what has been described, which form of cooperation would you consider to be supported, and which would you reject. Please mark the positively judged forms with +1, +2, +3 and -1, -2, -3 for the negatively judged forms, according to the strength of your opinion (e.g. I really want +3, I really don't want -3) . If you find a form indifferent, write a zero.

4. less developed countries

Today, the differences in development between individual countries of the European Union are very large, for example, there is a difference of more than ten times between wages.

Do you think there should be special catch-up programs (such as appropriate technology transfer, support for market access, provision of support for the construction of infrastructure, etc.) in order to catch up with less developed countries?

1. Yes, there is a need for such programs
2. Each country solves its own problem
3. I don't know

Other answer, suggestion:

5. The demographic future of Europe

Populations are declining in most countries of the European Union, with particularly low birth rates (total fertility rates) among native Europeans. Should the leaders of individual countries and the union do something to stop population decline?

Not

No, immigrants fill the gap

Yes, measures to increase the birth rate would be necessary

6. Perceptions of immigration

There is currently a great deal of debate about the need for immigration. In your opinion:

Immigration is needed

No need for immigration

No opinion

7. How do you assess the integration of immigrants from certain regions in your own country in recent decades?

8. European and national identity

you yourself

- he only considers it to belong to his own nation

– primarily to his own nation and then to the union

- he feels primarily European and only secondarily belonging to his own country

- he only feels European

- none of them

9. What do you think is good about the European Union that should still be kept?
10. What do you think is wrong with the European Union that should be changed?

Nationality………………………………..

Gender

Male □

Woman □

Other □

Age (years)

until 30 □

30-60               □

Over 60 □

Skill level

Basic degree □

Intermediate □

Higher degree □