For the first time ever, a scientific microcosm of Europe was gathered to a single place, the European Parliament building in Brussels, to deliberate in 22 languages about key issues facing the future of the EU and its member states. The participants became dramatically more informed about key issues and changed their views. Participants from the 12 new member countries had different starting points in their opinions but generally changed their opinions more, growing closer in their views to those from the older member states. Over a long weekend, the participants deliberated about economic, social and foreign policy, reflecting on “Europe in the World.”

 Economic and social reforms: In social policy, the sample became more willing after deliberation to make sacrifices to secure their pensions. The support for “raising the retirement age” went up from 26% to 40%. And support for “making it attractive to work longer before retiring” went from 57% to 70%. Participants increasingly realised that “keeping the retirement rules the way they are will bankrupt the retirement system” (from 50% to 59%). Regarding economic reforms, those somewhat or strongly in favour of encouraging foreign investment went from 58.4% to 69.3%.

 Enlargement: The percentage agreeing that “additional countries that meet all the political and economic conditions for membership should be admitted to the EU” decreased from 65% to 60%. In the case of Turkey, support for EU admission if it met all the conditions fell from 55% to 45% and in the case of the Ukraine, it fell from 69% to 55%. These results did not appear to be connected to concerns about Muslims. There was no significant change on whether “adding a Muslim country to the EU would make the EU too diverse” (43% before and 41% afterwards) and no significant change on whether “adding a Muslim country to the EU would improve the EU’s relations with the Muslim world” (49% before and 47% afterwards). Rather, there was a significant change in those agreeing that “adding more countries to the EU would make it more difficult for the EU to make decisions” (increasing from 52% to 62%).

The general feeling, confirmed, was that the EU was “adding too many countries too fast” (46% before deliberation and 53% afterwards). EU Role in the World—There was strong support, both before and after, for the use of military force for certain purposes—“defend another EU country against military attack” (80% before and 83% after), and “to prevent genocide in other countries” (82% before and 81% afterwards). However support for the use of military force “to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction” fell from 70% to 59%. And support for strengthening the military power of one’s own country dropped from 39% to 31% after deliberation.

In addition, there was a sense of the growing importance of Russia as a problem. The importance of “Europe’s dependency on Russian energy supplies” went from 81% to 83% (a small but statistically significant change) and the importance of “Russian interference in the affairs of eastern European and Central Asian countries went from 65% to 74% after deliberation.

 Degree of EU integration: The percentage wishing that member states decide independently from the EU about pensions went from 32% to 41% and the percentage wanting more of an EU role in pension policy dropped from 54% to 46%. Something that did not change significantly was the participants’ view that, on balance, pensions should not just be left to individual member states, but rather, required more coordinated action through the EU. This seemingly contradictory view can be interpreted as follows: citizens understand that the EU does not have the necessary competences today, and that it is the duty of member states to undertake reforms. But that in the future, citizens wish the EU to take a greater role.

On the other hand, there was an increasing sense that the EU should take more of a role for certain issues—support for an EU role in energy supply increased from 52% to 59% and support for an EU role in diplomatic relations increased from 55% to 63%.

 Old and new member states: The differences between old and new member states sheds light on enlargement as well as many other issues in the dialogue. The participants from the 12 new member states since 2004 generally had different starting points in their attitudes, changed more during the deliberations, and ended up closer to the old member state participants by the end of the process. The deliberations did more than bring old and new together physically into the same room. They also brought them together in terms of their views.

The largest difference between the new and old member states was in the question on admission of Ukraine. Support fell from 78% to 49% (a drop of 29 points) among new member participants but it only fell from 65% to 57% among participants from the old member states. Similarly, in the case of Turkey, support among new member participants fell from 58% to 44% while among old member state participants, it fell from 53% to 46%. Among new member state participants, there was a change in support for a Muslim country joining the EU (a fall from 52% to 33%). Among participants from the old member states, support for a Muslim country joining actually increased (from 38% to 45%).

On common problems like retirement the convergence at the end of the deliberations was greater. For example, on whether “keeping the retirement rules the way they are will bankrupt the retirement system” new member participants moved from 45% to 59% agreeing while old member state participants started higher but moved less to the same point (from 52% to 59% agreeing). From different starting points, the old and new generally moved closer together, with the new moving more. On each of 119 questions including attitudes, general life issues, general politics questions, participants from new members states experienced 45% more change before and after deliberation than participants from old member states.

 Knowledge Gains: The knowledge gains were dramatic for the whole sample and also for both new and old member state participants. Before deliberation, the new member states answered 9 knowledge questions with an average level correct of 37%. After deliberation their average level correct was 53%, a statistically significant gain of 16 points. The old member state participants had the same gain, but from a higher base (an average level correct of 40% before deliberation, and a final score of 56% correct). Knowledge topics included the EU budget (+22 points correct answers), how members of the Parliament are elected (+23 points), the role of the EU in unemployment benefits (+17 points) and how EU foreign aid compares with US foreign aid (+22 points).

 Representativeness: The sample of 362 was recruited from an initial random sample of 3,500 in fieldwork conducted by TNS-Sofres in 27 countries. Participants who took the initial survey were randomly selected by country in proportion to their representation in the EU parliament. Because all participants were invited only after they had completed a comprehensive initial questionnaire, it is possible to compare participants and non-participants (those in the original sample who did not attend). The participants are more educated and more male. However, the substantive differences on all the policy attitudes are small. If one considers the full range of possible difference between participants and non-participants on the 59 attitude questions, the actual difference is only 4% of that possible range. So even when there are statistically significant differences, the magnitude of the differences is small. Hence it can be demonstrated that this was a good microcosm of Europe. Moreover, there was a statistically significant increase in the degree to which members of EU countries liked each other more after deliberations (and their likes and dislikes for other countries did not similarly increase.) Details are provided in a separate handout.

SOME RESULTS Opinion changes before and after the deliberation (see attached documents on the right column for complete results)
Economic and social reforms
Raising the retirement age
BEFORE		AFTER
Making it more attractive to work longer before retiring
BEFORE		AFTER
Enlargement
Additional countries that meet all the political and economic conditions for membership should be admitted to the EU
BEFORE		AFTER
If it meets all the political and economic conditions for membership, Turkey should be admitted to the EU
BEFORE		AFTER
EU role in the world
My country should strengthen its military power
BEFORE		AFTER
Degree of EU integration
How much of the decision-making in pensions should be made by the individual member states versus the EU, or do you have any opinion about that?
On a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 means that the individual member states make all the decisions, 10 means that the EU makes all the decisions and 5 is exactly in the middle
BEFORE		AFTER
How much of the decision-making in energy supply should be made by the individual member states versus the EU, or do you have any opinion about that?
On a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 means that the individual member states make all the decisions, 10 means that the EU makes all the decisions and 5 is exactly in the middle
BEFORE		AFTER
How much of the decision-making in diplomatic relations should be made by the individual member states versus the EU, or do you have any opinion about that?
On a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 means that the individual member states make all the decisions, 10 means that the EU makes all the decisions and 5 is exactly in the middle
BEFORE		AFTER
Old and new member states On each of 119 questions including attitudes, general life issues, general politics questions, participants from new members states experienced 45% more change before and after deliberation than participants from old member states
Support for admission of Ukraine
OLD MEMBER STATES		NEW MEMBER STATES
Support for a Muslim country joining the EU
OLD MEMBER STATES		NEW MEMBER STATES

---

18 October 2007