Standard Eurobarometer 23 - Public Opinion in the European …ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/eb/eb23/eb23_en.pdf · 111.3.4. Typological analysis of attitudes

euro-barometre PUBLIC OPINIBY IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

No. 23 JUNE 1985

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES RUE DE LA LOI 800 1049 BRUSSELS

f .

EUROBAROMETER

. .

PUBLIC OPINION I N THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

SPRING 1985

- The mood o f Europeans: sa t is fac t ion w i th l i f e and w i th the way

- A people ‘ls- Europe: -aytTtudes towards the abol i t i o n o f border checks

democracy works

the creat ion o f a European legal area and the in t roduct ion o f a European currency

i.. -.,

- At t i tudes towards Europe and the Comnunity: Spanish and Portuguese

- The European Parliament: what people th ink a year a f t e r the 1984

accession; the plan f o r European p o l i t i c a l union

elect ions

__ - -- - z w I

OD \

m No 23 - June-1985. - -

5 Commission o f the European Communities x Rue de l a Loi 200 - 1049 Brussels

- . .

\

PRELIMiqARY NOTE

EUROBAROMETER PUBLIC OPINION POLLS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED ON BEHALF

OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES EACH SPRING AND

AUTUMN SINCE SEPTEMBER 1973. THEY HAVE INCLUDED GREECE SINCE

AUTUMN 1980 AND WILL BE EXTENDED TO SPAIN AND PORTUGAL I N DUE

COURSE.

AN IDENTICAL SET OF QUESTIONS ISS PUT TO REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES - DIFFERENT EACH TIME - OF THE POPULATION AGED FIFTEEN AND OVER I N

EACH OF THE TEN COUNTRIES.

PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEWERS BETWEEN 14 MARCH AND 22 APRIL 1 9 8 5

T H I S SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT BY - 1 ,:,

. a . IN THE HOMES OF THE 9 ~ & ~ L E C T E D RESPONDENTS.

2 1

SPECIALIST NATIONAL INSTITUTES, ALL MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN

OMNIBUS SURVEY, WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING THE POLL. ALL

THESE INSTITUTES, WHICH WERE SELECTED BY TENDER, BELONG TO THE

EUROPEAN SOCIETY FOR OPINION AND MARKETING RESEARCH AND COMPLY WITH

I T S STANDARDS. -

THE NAMES OF THE INSTITUTES AND FIELD-WORK SPECIALISTS I N EACH

COUNTRY ARE L ISTED I N THE APPENDIX TOGETHER WITH THE RELEVANT

TECHN1 CAL DETAILS.

* * *

I N ACCORDANCE WITH NORMAL PRACTICE FOR T H I S TYPE OF SURVEY THE

COMMISSION DISCLAIMS ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR QUESTIONS, RESULTS

AND COMMENTAR1 ES.

.

CONTENTS

Pages

INTRODUCTION

I. THE MOOD OF EUROPEANS

1.1. SATISFACTION WITH LIFE

1

2

1.2. SATISFACTION WITH THE WAY DEMOCRACY WORKS 4

II. A PEOPLE'S EUROPE

11.1. ABOLITION OF CHECKS AND FORMALITIES AT THE COMMUNITY'S INTERNAL FRONTIERS

11.2. CREATION OF A EUROPqN LEGAL - , I 1 AREA<

11.3. 1 - 4, L . , I C - I__."_ _I- -

INTRODUCTION OF A EUROPEAN CURRENCY

III. ATTITUDES TOWARDS EUROPE AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

111.1.

111.2.

FOR OR AGAINST EUROPEAN UNIFICATION

ATTITUDES TO THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY 111.2.1. Understanding between Comnunity

count r i es 111.2.2. Feelings about whether one's country

has benefited o r not from Comunity membership

I I I. 2.3. Overal 1 assessment o f Comuni ty members h i p

. .

111.3. THE ACCESSION OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL 111.3.1. Awareness o f the event 111.3.2. For o r against Spanish and

Portuguese accession 111.3.3. For whom i s Spanish accession

a good o r bad th ing? 111.3.4. Typological analysis o f a t t i tudes

t o en1 argement

PLAN FOR EUROPEAN POLITICAL UNION ~

111.4.1. At t i tudes t o the plan 111.4.2.

111.4.

To go ahead without the others o r drop the idea

a

9

14

17

20

21

23

23

23

25

33 33

34

3a

44

49 50

52 111.4.3. Which countries must par t i c ipa te? 57

_- . , . .. . :. '.

Pages

I V . THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

AWARENESS OF THE I N S T I T U T I O N AND THE PUBLIC 'S OVERALL VIEW

I V . l .

I V . 2 . THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CURRENT ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND PREFERENCES REGARDING I T S FUTURE ROLE

61

62

70

ANNEXES

I

7n acidiXon Ib t h e tregulÀ& chptetr on the mood od E w p e a n s designed t o gauge lth& b U d a d o n u h .&je and t&h $he cuay dwnochacy wotrh6, tu ediaZon 0 4 Ewrobahomctm aedo ex#Ohes pubfic ofziniond and a.t?%udes in a e ten C o d y c u W e s on $.ive mj’otr h b u ~ :

- a people’b Empe; - the ~r&a.tive b e n e d a 0 4 Commtncty m e m b m k i p 40 dcvt and the

- lthe accuhion 0 6 Spain and P o m g a t ; - lthe p h n dotr Emopean p o U d W n ; - m e n e b b 0 4 Xhe Eunapean Paheiament and aM;Ltude6

co/r/r&.a%on betureen views on t tkis and g e n d v i m on C o m u d y membehskip; 1

Lt a y u a d t a t h e 1984 ete&ond.

TIE MOO0 OF EUROPEANS AT THE END OF I984

T h a e ane sign6 06 a bWh2 hise i n t h e t e v d 0 6 fi e compa/red uttth ~ e v . i o u b suavq& &- mgb.& wuwúe+5 P- mnce, Ita&, Luxembomg and Gaeece - mobably ab a aesu.42 od aeeW.ionh by lthe media t o f i e upfuhn in lthe economy. l t hemcún¿ b a b l e in Gmany and the UnCted lCingdom b u t has dtropped hl.¿gMy in t h e NdhuLands.

ThCd indicata/t h Cem the combined p~~0due.t od p m o d treac.tion.6 changes in the ove/Laee economic 6 h a a X o n , ab tredteclted in evetryday

The Vanes l.¿&, and 0 4 c- n o m bpecidic t o didiment b o c i c t h . ane Zhe most ba..Ci¿&d, mose 40 i n sp/Ling 1985 Xhan CLt any othm ltime since the /tegu& buhveys began. The Ftrench, Gtreeks and ZXatLan~ me the least bU$.Led b u t theirr t e v d o$ [email protected] i.6 tending t o hibe u ihm .than daU.

‘(See Tabee 1 , p. 3 ) -

In v iew od t h e & 2 u ~ t o adopt the 1985 C o m m d g budgd on ;time, t h e s ix-montUy ~wrvey d h . t &ed o u t .in Spain and P o m g a t i n a h n 1981 has un604.Xunatety had Ib be dedmed dok h e v m a t m o n t h . tresutt2 W be pub.Uhed aX a .&.ta &e.

The

T h a e LA no po% wing t o e x p l a h v a&f%¿onb s h & in tucm¿ od f i e popuÆmu2y 06 2he g o v m e n t in powm at a given &¿me. f foweva, i t LA a hact lthcLt pacep.tian6 06 democ/racy change -. tkcb does not necessahiey mm 2h. t ci*tizenb me any Æess aaXached Zo i2 - since, bmadey speak ing , t h a e LA no consltant etement among thohe 4-tluc;rcczlting b w e e n 4ati66acCLon 'and di6sas.tb~acAXon.

(See ?ûb& 3 , p . 6 )

A PEOPLE'S EUROPE

1 . Abotktion 0 4 aclminisZmaXve check and b o w e s a2 b o d m wo& be uretcomed on ave/raae bu s i x Eu)Lc~uns i n ten ;th/to udwu;t t h e Comnwtity. n u k f i e &ge didd~ences $mm one countrry t o anotha: a majoJr.¿Zy in davom + t ~ t h e six doundm memberrd and in Gteece; bult a m a j o a y against .úz I W d , Venmarrk and the U d e d Kingdom.

&It th& bxoad-ap$ova& h. .:/cinc¿pte Ahodd no2 be &wed t o

These trepties comeedte s;t/LongÆy &h aM;ctudes lta& Euhopean uni6ica.Cion. &It S L A hpoJ&avLt t o ~1thess that, even among in taviwees &o wme a CLinst Eu~~pean w z i ~ i d o n , a signi@ant pmpoaZion WMC do& t h e a b o & t ? i bodm checks and d o w e s . In 0 t h wo&, s u c h Ü move wouÆd undoubtedey be an h p o & t a n t a t e p in t h e a d o n 06 a peapte's Empe.

(See TabÆes 5 and 7, pp. 1 1 and 1 3 )

2. CtemXon 06 a E w p e a n leglte a ~ e c ; l woued be even mote p o p W &h col?i"a y pubac opinion: almost as many as nine ht ten and a m a j o a y i n evmy &ingle c o w a e i n bavou .

tfoweva, i2 LA wo& n o h g ttlzctt X a v i w e e s who pÆuced 2,hemSetves on lthe $a Æe@ ot Æedf 06 the p o W d speWuun tended to be Æab i n davam than o t h m . needed 06 the pmcAXWe6 involved, and , i n pan*ticcLea/t, t h e guahanteed which cL.tízenb would be given.

T k i s wo&d suggest 2h.t a Ceeuf~m explumCLon LA

(See TabÆes 8 and 9, pp. 15 and 1 6 )

To &ow anatys& based on indiv.úfuuÆ AfwÆogy intertviewees wehe asked $0 pluce themsetves on a Æe$t/@h.t s d e . (See note, p . 1 4 . )

111 ,

t ' p o ~ t o mint money" me considt%uble .Ln tw 06 f i e move Itourands a pwfle'4 Empe. ltEwrapean menty" a6 pakt o$ a dmvey on t h e u6e 06 t h e ECU v e d o u t h deven Commwzity cow2;oLies a6 a suppLement Xo Euhobrurometm.

The kesueb dhow Itha$ t h e public /rea& d.&f$aen.t&j to f i e i d e a 0 6

Two ques;t;ion6 wme asked on t h e poddibte - d o n 06 a

Cin n a a X o d cichtrendes by a Emopean c m e n c y and Xhe i d e a 06 n a l c w e n c i e s and a Emopean c m e n c y conwenZ.@. ?-.A& - uw

dimt i d e a . Thehe wehe mmbed di$@uwces between I W y , Ftuuzce, [email protected] and 1uzesnbou.g on t h e one hand, uka% a m a j o u g h davam, and Genmany and Xhe UnLted Kingdom on t h e o t h e hand, utith a majohcty agahu t ; t h e ~ p & L e s w e make evenly dis&bulted i n the N a u & , wiXh d f i g k t t y mom against.

aebeict lÁ@m i n dome mes than h 0 t h ~ ~ ~ i n att deven coun.Oúe~ cavuïed bij the swúey.

A f h i h d o$ .¿ntuïviwees on avmage daid they w e e i n davom o$ t h e

. . .

Siix Ewtapeans i n ten me .¿n d a v o u 0 6 t h e dewnd i d e a ukth a majohL.@,

Thme Lb a s m n g c o h u o n between these u p f i e s and a.tZLtudes

(See Tabtes 10 and 1 1 , p. 1 8 )

Ib- the Commwzity. " ' ' I

4 ,

I _

-. - 1 - I i . .

EUROPE AND- Tff P COMMUNTTY

Gene/raeey dpeaking; suppon;t both do& f i e phincLple 04 E m p e a n uni&h+.tion and $04 the Commwzcty A s l i g h t l y up on f i e p u v i a u s dwtvey. I n aaR p m b a b U y , .WA .&end, wkich emages moht ~Leahey i n coun*thies &me Xhe 6ieedwo/rk ulab &ed oLct i n &Xe MatrchlecvLey Am, he6kmth f i e 0P;timis;tic messages pLLt a w d b by t h e m e h $allowing Xhe ag/teement on Spanish and Pomkguese accesdian.

TfÚ6 p u b f i b~n&d%h&j 2O evenb and how $hey rure 4epon;ted i.6 pahticuRahey evident in tremes to f i e question on t h e .&end .Ln undeh- s;ltn&g b W e e n Commwzity counthies i n trecent montb. Fok Zhe &i.~.t ltime 4.Lnce autumn 1978 pod&ive mp&h &Xgktty orttnwnbmed ne.g&ve ones. undm;ltnding has inctreased kode bhom 9% h 1983 to 30% h~ dp)Ling 1985.

In FILILYLCC, 604 example, t h e pmcevllbge 0 6 t h s e who c o n s i d a lthat

We W, o$ come., have t o (McLct 6uaI.m ~ m v e y ~ - and $-e evem2 - Ita dee how penman& tki6 6ltiee-hesitant &e*tu/m t o a motLe davautrabte assesdment 06 /reeatiavts belveen OUA counthies pmves ;ta be.

(See Tabte 15 , p. 2 4 )

Gene/rae aa%Xudes t o w & Community membmkip have changed ÆZWe

,%?&mr- y m o u podi.~Xve. ed crtCth p ~ v . ¿ o u s ~wtvey.6 except i n Fmnce and h&nd whehe they

' T h Á conduded on behaed 06 a gtoup 06 banks and tuemeh &.t¿.tutes by t h e Euopean Omnibud Savey. p u b u h e d h $Uee a.t a m e r r date.

The tum wilÆ be

T h w .LA a com&a..tLon bulueen f i ese trepRiu and t h e $e&g that one'd coun0r.y has otr has not bene$Lted $mm ComunLty m e m b m f ú p . dome cowzthiu, nohbty Fmnce, t h e Ne.thu&nds and €Wgiwn, a4 w& as $he U d e d ICingdom, f i e ~uppomW~6 o$ Commwzcty m e m b m f ú p ourtnwnbm h b e who $e& $haX ltheih c o u & y has bene$&ed $mm membmfúp . AruzÆyd.LA con$.inms a%a.t the /ratia b " n lthe $WO v u b h dib$m &om COUntRy .to coun0r.y.

7n

l n f i e b.& dounda membm a majohity o$ t h o d e who conaidm tthrtt the,& countky has not benebaed $mm m e m b m f ú p have equivocut 04 even po&Xve v i - on f i e C o d y genucal ty . .thode who consida that t h e i h c o m y has not bene$.¿ted aedo have a gen- negaZive v i w o$ the Cornmuni;ty.

Comnwzity .LA in a pe/rcepthna 06 PJW&~ and &M.

m w h m e , howeva, $he majo- o$

l n f i e $.&A$ gmup 06 codu,une;ike-in f i e decond, duppoU $04 the based on dom41tking otr althm than shoU-tenm

- . - -

ENLARGEMENT

On avehage d i k Ewropeans in ten w h o m e ;the pm4pec.t o$ Spanibh and Poktuguue accudion. The pmpc&Cion v h e d somwthrtt $mm coun&y to cotwhy; moht i n $avom me t h e I&Uans, t h e Setg.ians, t h e Luxembowrgw and f i e Vultch, &th f i e Vaned and lthe Ftrench &ighZty &ud 40; howevm Ln doult c o W u - lthe United ICingdom, ltr&nd, Venñ~aAk and moht o$ dl Gkeece -, we dound a tr&a&Lv&j high nwnbm o$ "dan't know1'.

(See Tabte 21 , p. 36)

[See pp. 46 It0 4 8 )

PLAN FOR EUROPEAN POLZTZCAL UNZON

S e v W q u u ~ o n a wme u k e d on tkc6 dubject, about which t h e p u b u AU deem6 .to know W e : on avehage $OUA h t m v i w e u in t e n (and ab many ab 55% in lthe U d e d h g d o m ) d a i d they wme .indi$$merzt 04 did not k W .

V

Among those who d id exp~~ess an opinion .the suppoJLXw 06 .the p h n ou.tnumbaed .the opponen;ts by t h e e ;to one: 76% î u against 24%.

The epei eies d id6aed c o n s i d w b l q $‘rom couvzrthy .to cowzltrry: .¿n seven OL& ob t h e t en t h m e A a m a j o a y i n (avom; ontg .¿n VenmcMk A t h m e a majo/LLtg against; i n t h e United lCingdom t h e t l $ O ~ t t and tlagains&tl mohe OIL tess batance o u t , w i t h those h davoua v a g s&.ghZ&j .¿n the l tead.

(Sie Tabte 28 , p. 5 1 )

Burt the dwrvey goes tab en. and shows that &o th&& ob those in davowr o$ a Euhopean Unian b&eve tha..t, i$ t h e Meniberr W e s cannot agme on the idea, those coL(n;t/Lies which do a g ~ e shou&ì go ahead done. W h a t d moke, among lthe opponent6 o$ t h e p h , one i n dive woutd not object ;ta i.t pmceeding without umúXng OIL t h e coun.?Mes which do not agme.

A coun;t/ry-by-count/ry a d y s A &hou $hat kt iA t h e c0un~2 .A~ w i t h t h e kighest numbm 0 4 Union suppoJLXeh6 tha t t h a e iA &o lthe Wut p m p o m n o$ s u p p o u m in davom 06 pkesshg ahead cuirthout $Lottha

8 - , I

I ’ 1 c I z . deeay.

Convm&g, ii Z/ r&nd , t h e United Kingdom and above ltee in Venmahk, about haed o$ those who ~ R Q i n davoua 0 6 t h e p h de& .tbt Lt shoutd be drrapped i d unanimoud ag4eemen;t - cannot be teached.

Genehaeey speaking, t h e coun&ied whose w c i p l l l l t i o n A judged usent iae i i t h e Unian .¿A t o have any meaning a e G e n ” y and Fmnce, ~ o U o w e d by lthe U d e d Kingdom and Iltaey.

7n ¿hoa, then, .¿t b o k s u though t h e United Kingdom luiee play a decisive hate i n t h e outcome, whethen. i.t deoides .to a k e pm.t i n t h e p h OIL not.

(See Tabte 31, p. 5 9 )

Tff E EUROPEAN PARLZAMEM

WLth a v i w t o t h e ne& Ewwpean P-evtt &eca%ns .¿n June 1989, PatlRiamentls Vd~ecto~u.zXe-Gen4nae OIL I n $ o W o n and Public Reeations ha6 decided t o moni*to/r *endb i n pub l ic op.Monb and - d u , espe@ among those 0 4 volting age, on a lregLceCvr b a s d befureen &ecCi.ons (some- ltking wkich had not been done i n t h e p a t ) .

PatlRiament: w h a m OIL not t h e intmviewee had h eakd anything about Lt u c e a y . h m e a s i n g dutting d e c t i o n puLod6 and & & i n g odd t h ~ ~ e a @ m . Lt would seem .tbt .the &end i n att count hie^ iA u p u ~ d s , atthough Lt woutd be m h t o a.t.temp$ a p/re&uXon based s h p t y on an ex;ttuzpoWon, s h c e X h a e d no da& avttieable &om bphing 1980 t o A p h i n g 1982.

One 06 t h e qued2XoU abked concmed aumenus o$ &e Emopean

Tkid aumenus co& be desClLibed (24 l l i v L t W e v L t t t , f f o w e v ~ ~ ,

(See Tabte 32 , p. 6 5 )

VI

Od t h e 'roughly s i x pe:t:P-e o& od t en who Ceaim t o have 'reud o'r h d sometking 'recentty abou m e Ewropean P W e n t , one tki/rd had gained a "genmatty 6avowrable1' .úrr..-.esbion, a 6 w ~ t h u ~ A h f hud gained a 'Igen- Undavowble" .unp)rebsion, wkiee the 'remainden. gave a neu%Æ ' rep ly 04 no 'rep.ty at &.

The $ a v o m b l e .¿mp&ess&n ptrevaies .in I-, Gtreece and Firance - and in I're&uzd and Setgium, bLLt onty jut!

(See Table 34, p . 68)

These 'repties Ceeahey comeeczlte wLth -deb .tou;lzvrdb Zhe Ewropean U even mmg *se who /rega/Ld Commtuúty mentbmkip UA "a Conm#uzity.

good thing" o v a a q m e n . (26%) have a " g e n W y un6avou~abte" in1p're66hn 0 6 the Eu~~opean P a W .

(See Tabte 36, p . 69 ) - -

The most po.6iAive hepfia W U L C in I W d , 1.ta.Q and - $hÁ h e mund

(See Table 37, p . 7 1 )

The @mt quesltion i n the s&es on Paheiam& KUA concmed u h - t h e mie W inte/rviwees woutd fike It0 see it pe"$. Sy and w e t h e u p f i e s w a e pos.úXve: 56% o m pecrnb d e W e t h m e t v u i n 6avow. 06 a mo're h p o - mle. T I ú ~ ~ v i e w in .the Membeh StaAu u h t h e sole e x c e w n 06 V e d .

- Fmce, and .the less poh.Uve ones h Zhe Nethehean& and G ~ c n ~ a n y . -

h d d by f i e m z j o a y o6 'respondents .~ . ..

(See Table 38, p. 731

CHAPTER I

THLMQQD OF- EUROPEANS __ - ._. _- .

_ -

, . ~ ..,.:.

- 2 -

I

THE MOOD OF EUROPEAN'

Since 1973, two ind icators have been used regu lar ly i n the Eurobaro-

r i v a t e mood ; the other concerns t h e i r sa t i s fac t i on regarding the way

meter t o assess the mood o f Europeans: one concerns t h e i r s a t i s f a c t on w i th the l i f e they lead and corresponds t o what might be ca l l ed the r - democracy wor s and corresponds t o t h e i r 'publ ic mood'. These two variables are d i s t i n c t but correlated.

1.1. SATISFACTION WITH LIFE .... . .. . - . . ..

As a possible consequence o f the i nc ip ien t economic recovery we are t o l d about-by the media, the- fee l ing o f sa t i s fac t i on w i th l i f e i s tending t o impröve s l i g h t l y i n r e l a t i o n t o the resu l t s o f recent surveys i n most countries. Taking a longer view, however, sharp di f ferences i n the average leve l f o r t h i s parameter between one country and another nevertheless pers is ts (1973-1985).

I n March/April 1985 the most s a t i s f i e d are (as before) the Danes ( the value obtained i s the highest since t h i s i nd i ca to r was created i n 1973). Next - and very close together - come the Dutch and the Luxembourgers. The leas t s a t i s f i e d are, i n reverse order, the French, the Greeks and the I t a l i ans ; however, some improvement may be noted: the French are less d i s s a t i s f i e d today than they were from 1976 t o 1981; the I t a l i a n s achieved a s l i g h t l y higher l eva l than the average f o r the 12 preceding years; the Greeks have made regular progress since the spr ing o f 1981, when the Eurobarometer was f i r s t extended t o cover t h e i r country.

As w i l l be seen, the fee l i ng o f sa t i s fac t i on w i th l i f e , although f a i r l y sens i t i ve t o the e f fec ts o f the general s i tua t ion , continues t o be determined by c u l t u r a l values, which are extremely stable.

_ _

The tab le below shows the resu l t s f o r March/April 1985 compared w i th those f o r the two preceding h a l f years; f igures are a lso given showing the trend since 1973, a per iod covering three j o i 1 shocks" and the aberrations caused or ampl i f ied by the l a t t e r .

(See Tables 1 and 2. For f u r t h e r de ta i l s see Table 1 i n the appendix)

The reference t o the three o i 1 shocks (1973, 1979 and 1980) i s purely ind icat ive; there i s no i n ten t i on t o suggest t h a t a d i r e c t causal l i n k might e x i s t between socio-economic phenomena o f t h i s k ind which a f f e c t the e n t i r e world and the fee l i ng o f sa t i s fac t i on or d issa t i s fac t i on expressed by ind iv iduals .

- 3 - . .

3 Index

Table 1

SATISFACTION/DISSATISFACTION WITH LIFE

3.34 3.45 2.97 2.89 3.42 2.67 3.26 3.34 3.16 : 2.98

2.91

i 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I Total

I 2.99 I 3.52 I 3.05 1 2.76 I 3.13 I 2.64 I 3.27 I 3.36 I 3.16 I 2.69 I 2.94 I I ~ & ~ ~

Oc tober/November 1984 Very sat isf ied I 16 I 58 I 13 I 10 I 30 I 12 I 32 I 47 I 30 I 15 I 19 I Fai r ly sat isf ied I 63 I 37 I 71 I 63 I 55 I 57 I 59 I 45 I 56 I 48 I 60 I Not very satisfied I l S I 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 ) 7 1 S I 1 0 1 2 5 1 1 6 1 Not a t a l l sat isf ied I I I I I 4 I 7 I 1 I 1 I 3 I 12 1 4 I

Don't know 1 1 1 2 í 1 1 1 1 * I 1 1 1 1 2 1 * I * I 1 1

3.55 2.96 2.80 3.12 2 . H 3.25 3.40 3.15 2.65 2.94

Total

Index3

3 Index

Warch/Aprll 1985 Very sat isf ied Fa i r ly sa t ls f Sed Not very sat isf ied Not a t a l l sat lsf ied

Don't know

3.60 3.06 2.85 3.07 2.74 3.29 3.31 3.15 2.76 2.98

- 4 -

Table 2

SAT1 SFACTIOK WITH L I Ff (Percentage o f "very sa t is f ied" )

B DK D F I R 1 I 1 I I L I UK1 I 86R I Ec2 I i September 1973 I 4 3 I 5 1 I 1 7 I 1 5 I 5 3 I 8 I 3 0 I 4 1 I 3 3 I : I 2 1 I

I 4 0 I 5 1 I 1 7 I 1 3 I 3 9 I 9 I 3 5 I 4 0 I 3 0 I : I 2 1 I I 1975-78 I (8 surveys)

I 1979-80 I (2 surveys)

I 1981-82 I (3 surveys)

11983-84 - I 22 4 56 I 16 '1 ~ 1 2 - I- 32 I ' b o I 36 I 42 I 30 I 17,eI 20 I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I l

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

' I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I 1 I I I I -I I I (4 surveys) l I I I l - I I I I I - I I

I I I I l l I I I I I I 1

1 I 3 6 I 5 3 1 2 0 1 1 0 ( 3 5 ( 9 1 3 4 1 4 6 1 3 1 1 :

- I I 28- I 366 1 - 3 6 I 14 I 36 I 13 I 38 I 44 I 34 I 18 i 22 I

I 26 I 63 I 24 I 13 I 31 I 15 I 39 I 40 I 33 I 19 I 23 I 1 March-April 1985 1 1 - 1 I I I I l I 1 1

11.2. SATISFACTION WITH THE WAY DEMOCRACY WORKS

Whi lst i n a l l member countr ies the major i t y o f the population i s s a t i s f i e d ra ther than d i s s a t i s f i e d with l i f e as a whole (p r iva te mood), the same i s not t r u e as regards sa t i s fac t i on w i t h the way democracy works (pub l ic mood). With few exceptions, the dominant mood i s one o f d issa t is fac t ion : signs o f improvement i n r e l a t i o n t o e a r l i e r surveys are few and bare ly perceptible.

the Germans and the Greeks; the l e a s t s a t i s f i e d are the I t a l i ans . The most s a t i s f i e d i n t h i s respect are the Luxembourgers, the Danes,

.

Excluding Northern I re land i n 1973. Weighted average, inc lud ing Greece from 1981 onwards.

- 5 -

Since these surveys were i n s t i t u t e d i n September 1973, f ou r d i f f e r e n t trends may be observed.

I n fou r countries, the degree o f sa t is fac t ion has increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y since 1973: they are Denmark, Germany and, t o a lesser extent, Luxembourg and the UK. I n a l l ' f o u r o f these countries, however, the present leve l o f sa t is fac t ion i s below the highest recorded during the past 12 years.

I n Belgium, sa t is fac t ion has s i g n i f i c a n t l y declined since 1973, but the lowest po in t - a t which d issa t is fac t ion predominated - was reached i n autumn 1980.

I n the ot.her countries f o r which resu l ts are avai lab le f o r the past twelve years, the leve l o f sa t is fac t ion i s about the same i n 1985 as i t was i n 1973; i n one case ( I t a l y ) t h i s leve l i s close t o the maximum attained over the period, while i n another ( I re land) i t i s closer t o the minimum. For France and the Netherlands the current leve l i s about hal f-way between these extremes.

I n Greece, f o r which f igures are only availJable-from autumn 1980, sa t is fac t ion reached i t s maximum i n autumn 1983, since when i t has held steady a t a somewhat lower level .

It i s evident t h a t changes-in e lectora l major i t ies, and the consequent 1 .

changes o f government, engender f luctuat ions i n fee l ings o f sa t is fac t ion w i th the way democracy works. par t ies tend t o fee l s a t i s f i e d o r d i ssa t i s f i ed w i th cyc l i ca l swings on the p o l i t i c a l scene, carry ing w i th them a proport ion o f the uncomnitted. However, the average leve l of sa t is fac t ion over a longer period i s determined by variables r e l a t i n g t o the p o l i t i c a l cul tu re character is t ic o f each ind iv idual country.

i n the working of democracy i n Germany, Denmark o r Luxembourg than i n France o r I t a l y , f o r example.

Supporters o f le f t-wing o r r ight-wing

Thus, the search f o r a consensus almost ce r ta in l y plays a greater p a r t

(See Tables 3 and 4 below and Table 2 i n the appendix)

.. - . . .

. " . .I. ..

- 6 -

lndex3

Table 3

SATISFACTION OR DISS!" :.'ACTION WITP! ..* -!E ?EMOCRAC" d9RKS

2.35 I 2.88 I 2.86 ,' 2.30 I 2.43 I 1.90 I 2.71 I 2.51 I 2.66 I 2.70 I 2.46

September 1973 Very satfsf ied F a i r l y sat isf led Not very satfsf led Not a t a l l sa t ls f lea

Don't know

Î

I 2 25 42 30 1

%

16 36 28 9

11

Total - 1 loo I 100 I 100 I 100 1-100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I : I 100 I 2.70 I 2.35 I 2.38 I 2.33 I 2.49 Ll.99 12.66 I 2.56 I 2.32 I : I 2.29 I _ - - _ - - - - - lndex3

I I , I I - 1 I - I l I - I I I March/April 1984 -

Very sat is f ied I 6 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 4 1 7 1 l I 1 l I S I 1 1 1 1 9 1 8 1 Fa 1 rl y sat i s f ied I 38 I 48-1 59 I 36-c 43--L -1%- I - 53 &- 48 I 49 1 - 41 I 42 I

I 34 I 21 I 19 I 34 I 27 I 45 I 20 I 33 I 25 I 21 1 30 I 1 1 7 1 6 1 3 1 1 8 1 1 6 1 3 1 1 9 1 1 0 1 9 1 1 3 I 1 4 I

Not very s a t i a i e d

1 5 1 5 1 7 1 8 1 7 1 4 1 7 1 3 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 Not a t a l l sa t is f ied

Don't know - I

October/Novembet 1984 Very sat isf ied F a i r l y sa t is f led Not very sat is f ied Not a t a l l sa t ls f lcd

Don't know

Total

Index'

I 1 4 , 43

33 15 5

1 i 20

50 19 5 6

~4

38 34

14 10

I 6 38 30 20 6

I -_ 1 . 3 I 11 25 I 57 45 I 24 26 I 5 1 1 3

I I 7 1 51 I 30 I

9 1 3 1

I I I 1 2 1 1 8 ) 8 1 48 I 39 I 43 I 27 I 24 I 32 I 10 I 13 I 13 I 3 1 6 1 4 1

i 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I I 2.39 I 2.89 I 2.78 I 2.32 I 2.33 I 2.04 I 2.75 I 2.57 1. 2.63 I 2.67 I 2.48 I

I .. . I I I I I I I I I I I I k r c h / A p t l l 1985 Very sat is f ied 1 - 5 1 1 9 1 - 1 3 1 5 1 8 1 2 1 1 5 1 7 1 7 1 1 9 1 ' 8 1 F a i r l y sa t is f ied I 47 I 49 I 60 I 39 I 41 I 23 I 57 I 49 I 44 I 40 I 42 I Not very sat is f ied I 27 I 21 1-19- I 35 I 28 I 45 I 20 I 29 I 30 I 20 I 31 I Not a t a l l sa t is f ied 1 1 4 ) 7 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 7 ) 2 7 1 2 1 9 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 4 1

Don't know I 7 I 4-]---3-$--8 I 6 I 3 I 6 I 6 I 6 1 8 I 5 I

Exc1uding.Norther-n-Ireland -in 1973.-

"Very s a t i s f i e d " = 4; "not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d " = 1; don' t knows excluded. * Weighted average. Excluding Greece i n 1973.

- 7 -

Table 4

SATISFACTION OR DISSATISFACTION WITH THE WAY DEMOCRACY WORKS ( Percentage I' sat i s f i e dl' o r 'I d i s s a t i s f i ed" )

September 1973 - sat isf ied - not sat isf ied

- 1976-77 (3 surveys) - sat isf ied - not sat isf ied

1978-79 (4 surveys) - sat isf ied - not sat isf ied

1980-81 (2 surveys) - Satisfied - not sat isf ied

1982-83 (4 surveys) - sat isf ied - not sat isf ied

- 1984 (2 surveys) - sat isf ied - not sat isf ied

March-Apri 1 1985 - sat isf ted - not sat isf led

8 DK D F IRL I L I IL I UK1 I GR I EC2 1' I I

62 I 45 I 44 32 I 53 1 55

i I

30 I I I

53 I i I

I I

62 I 78 34 I 18

47 I 6 6 " I 78 37 I 29 I 16

I- . - 1 . I I,

35 I 64 I 72 50 i 32 i 22

I I I ' 4

45 I 65 I 68 43 I 29 I 25

i I

i I

I I

46 I 69 1 72 49 I 26 I 24

i i 52 I 68 I 73 41 I 28- -1-24-

-

41 46

45 44

43 46

45 43

43 46

39 52

44 48

-

I I

I I

I I

33 I 77 I I

39 I 77 1 1

44 I 77 I I

I I

I

55 I 27 53 I 72

63 I 15 30 I 82

'59 1 20

53 I 20

48 I 19

47 1 24 46 I 74

49 1 25 45 I 72

Excluding Northern I re land i n 1973. 0

Weighted average. Including Greece from 1981. L

-

52 37

64 26

66 29

76 22

61 33

66 29

72 2 2

-

52 38

66 31

62 34

55 41

53 43

56 41

56 38

-

44 54

57 36

54 38

49 43

61 33

60 36

51 43

-

53 43

59 33

59 35

59 33

-

I I

46 I I I

43 I I I

42 I I I

45 I I

42 I I I

45 I I I

45 I I

48 I

51 I

51 I

48 I

49 I

50 1

51 I

. CHAPTER I I

A PEOPLE'S EUROPE

.. .

. .. . . ..- - .

. - 9 -

II

A PEOPLE'S EUROPE

When they met as the "European Council" a t Fontainebleau i n June 1984, the heads o f s ta te and government o f the Member States o f the European Community emphasized the need t o respond t o the expectations o f the peoples o f the Community by adopting measures l i k e l y t o strengthen the Comnunity's i d e n t i t y and the image i n the minds o f i t s c i t izens. One o f the measures proposed i s the abol i t i o n o f administrat ive checks and fo rma l i t i es a t the Community's in te rna l f ron t ie rs . t o be dea l t w4th i n Eurobarometer, a po in t made i n several parliamentary questions.

Another issue which r e g i n s top ica l despite the d i f f i c u l t i e s i t i s encountering -pr;ld .the+pposi-ti.gg$ it i s arousing i s the creat ion by the Member States o f the Community o f what i s being termed ''a European legal area", t h a t i s t o say a convention on the ex t rad i t i on o f persons who, t o escape prosecutipn for crimes o r offence$.comnitted i n one Member State, f l e e t o another. i n 1978.

*Finally, developments im the European monetary system and the p a r t played by the ECU i n p r i va te transactions lend c r e d i b i l i t y t o the idea o f introducing a Community currency.

On these three issues, whose symbolic importance f o r Comnunity c i t i zens i s obvious, questions have been asked - o r re-asked - and w i l l be asked again as i n s t i t u t i o n a l and l e g i s l a t i v e progress makes t h i s appropria te.

This top ic deserved

This issue was - thesub jec t o f a Eurobarometer question

, -

11.1. ABOLITION OF CHECKS ------ AND FORMALITIES AT THE COMMUNITY'S INTERNAL t RONTI ERS

_1_1_---

" l t hd6 been wopoild .?kt we could 9e.t u o$ U polXce and cus.tom conDralA 604 &zen4 o$ membm counaYúeb o$ t h e €u/topean Communtty when they &uv& 6Ween thede coun&ied. mthm $04, p h m again62 04 veny much against Auch a decision?"

h e you ve/ry much $04, E ----

See European Parliament reso lu t ion o f 9 Ju ly 1982. * This question.was preceded by another about how o f ten questioned had crossed the borders o f h i s own country three years, i.e. since 1982.

- -

the person over the past

- 10 -

B

The major i ty o f persons questioned throughout the Community (59%) were i n favour o f doing away w i th checks and fo rmal i t ies a t f ron t ie rs , 34% were against and 7% expressed no opinion.

DK D F IRL I

This large measure o f approval, which appears t o be i n keeping wi th a genuine Community, should not close our eyes t o the considerable differences between Member States. i n Greece opinion was very much i n favour, Belgium and Germany leadingl the f i e l d , fol lowed by Luxemhourg,Greece, the Netherlands and France. I n the United Kingdom, and t o a lesser degree i n Denmark, the major i t y were against. 38% were i n favour and 48% against.

I n the s i x founding Member States and

Opinion was somewhat more evenly div ided i n Ireland, where

. . (See Table 5)

There can be no doubt t h a t numerous factors determine these rep l ies and explain the differences. One o f the factors i s the amount o f t r a v e l l i n g done by the person questioned, which i s i n t u rn conditioned by the s i ze and geographical loca t ion o f the country i n question and the social pos i t ion o f the person questioned. Another fac to r i s the person's a t t i t u d e towards Europe and the Conmunity.

_ _ - -

Le t us look a t these two factors i n turn. . -..-__.-.- ___ , . - - - .

1. Foreign t rave l

o f ten had not v i s i t e d another European country f o r three years. other hand, seven Danes, seven Dutchmen and more than seven buxembourgers out o f ten had been outside t h e i r own country a t l eas t once. less there i s l i t t l e corre lat ion, tak ing a l l ten Member States i n t o account, between the percentage of nationals who had been abroad (or even the frequency o f t h e i r journeys) and the rep l ies on the abo l i t i on o f checks and fo rmal i t ies a t f ront iers .

More than e igh t Greeks, roughly seven I t a l i a n s and seven Irishmen out On the

Neverthe- ,

L .___--__I __-- -_

A f t e r ' t h i s p o l l was carr ied out, the Federal Republic o f Germany, France and the three Benelux countries (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) concluded an agreement i n May 1985 on the gradual abo l i t i on o f checks on t h e i r common f ron t ie rs .

po l l , i t i s not without i n frequency o f t ravel ,

Although t h i s was not the main purpose o f the i n te res t t o see the extent o f the differences broken down by Member State:

Not a t a l l * * 44% 32% 38% 63% 69% 71% A t l eas t once I I I I I I 56 68 62 37 31 29

24% 30% 58% 82% 55%

* Weighted average. ** Including don't knows.

- I I -

UK

% 12 15 28

36 9

100

2.04

Table 5

ABOLITION OF CHECKS AND FORMALITIES AT THE COMMUNITY'S INTERNAL FRONTIERS

GR

% 36 23 13

10 19

100

3.02

Very much f o r Rat her f o r Rather against Very much against Don't know

B

% 47 38 6

3 6

100

3.38

Tota 1

Index 2

DK

% 13 21 21

35 10

100

2,12

I

15-24 25-39 40-54 years years years

Travel None 43% 52% 52% A t least once 57 48 48

Abol i t ion o f f ron t ie rs 'Very much f o r 30 32 31 - Rat her f o r 26 28 31 Rather against 22 20 16 Very müch against 17 15 15

Don't know 5 5 7

I Index 2-73 2-80 2-84 Total2 ~ 100 100 100

I

I

55 years and over

68% 32

28 29 17 15 11 100 2-79

7 27 28 21

16 8

100

2,72

- - -

E E C ~

x 30 29 19

15 7

100

2.79

A t the indiv idual level the fac t o f having gone abroad a t least once has a posi t ive corre lat ion wi th the a t t i tude o f the person i n question t o the abo l i t ion o f f ronMer cRlcks:dnd formali4Aes, but the correlat ion i s not a strong one and i t does' not become any- stronger when we take i n t o account the frequency o f - foreign t r w e l .i - . -

(See Table 6)

I n short, the objective factors such as the size o f the country, i t s geographical locat ion o r the amount of- t rave l l i ng done by the person questioned have l i t t l e influence on tha t person's a t t i tude towards the abol i t ion o f f r o n t i e r checks and formalit ies.

Additional confirmation may be obtained by examining the repl ies given by young people (15-24). On average, they t ravel abroad f a r more often than t h e i r elders, but Shey are not more favourably disposed o f f r o n t i e r checks and formalities.

We i ghted average. "Very much fo r" = 4; "very much against" = 1; don't knows are not included i n the calculation. Amount o f foreign t ravel and a t t i tude t o abo l i t ion o f f r o n t i e r checks and 3

formal i t ies, broken down by cg e. Jfhe Comnunity as a whole)'

- 12 -

The most decisive var iable i s the a t t i t ude towards European un i f i ca-

1 t ion.

2. A t t i tude t o European un i f i ca t i on

Member States o f the Community appears i n a l l the Member States as one o f the aims - i f not one o f the e f fec t i ve and symbolic character is t ics - o f a genuine Comnunity. favour o f European un i f i ca t ion , the more they were l ikewise i n favour o f opening up the f ron t ie rs . Member States, but most strongly i n the Netherlands, France and Germany. Bet ter yet: even among those respondents who were not, o r only t o a small degree, i n favour o f European uni f icat ion, a f a r from neg l ig ib le percentage were i n favour o f abolishing f r o n t i e r checks. I n Denmark, f o r example, where only a t h i r d o f the population (34%) i s i n favour o f un i f i ca t i on and s l i g h t l y under h a l f i s against, roughly one person i n three among those opposed t o E~ropean~un i f i ca t i on wanted (o r would accept) abo l i t i on o f f r o n t i e r checks.

Decisions aimed a t e l iminat ing the various obstacles t o f r o n t i e r crossing w i th in the Community and- perhaps- even the abol i t i o n o f the f ron t ie rs themselves, the signboards which mark them (Douane, Customs, Zol l , etc.) and the disbanding o f the s t a f f which man them would be an . important step towards the creat ion o f a people's Europe.

Abo l i t ion o f checks and fo rmal i t ies a t the f ron t i e rs between the

I n other words, the more the respondents were i n

This cor re la t ion may be observed i n a l l the

(See Table 7)

For more on t h i s top ic see Chapter III.

countries. ' 3 This example i s p a r t i c u l a r l y interest ing.

breakdown o f the answers given by Danish respondents t o these two questions:

O f 100 Danes questioned (N = 1021) - 34% (n = 345) were f o r Euroeean un i f i ca t i on

* The corre lat ion i s r = .266, .255 and .227 respect ively f o r these three

You w i l l see below a

-L---------- -----o-------- ---------œ-----

o f whom: 15% (n = 153) were f o r opening up f ron t i e rs 17% (n = 176) were against 2% (n = 16) had no opinion

- 44% i n = 449) were against Euroeean un i f i ca t i on

27% (n = 277) were against

-œ-- ------- ------œ ---------- --------------- o f whom: 14% (n = 139) were f o r opening up f ron t i e rs

3% (n = 33) had no opinion - 22% (n = 227) expressed no oeinion on Euroeean un i f i ca t i on

-------------œ-- ----------- ------------- --------------- o f whom: 5% (n = 50) were f o r opening up f r o n t i e r s

6% (n = 60) had no opinion. 11% (n = 117) were against

i

I - 13 -

Table 6 --

Very Rather Rather Very Don't Total Index' much f o r against much know f o r aga i ns t

Journeys : None 23 28 21 17 11 100 2.64 A t l e a s t once 30 30 16 13 3 100 2.96

ATTITUDE TO ABOLITION OF FRONTIER CHECKS AND FORMALITIES I N ?",;,TION TO CT O).~ HAV I N G VISm D, OR NOT V I SITED, A NOTHtR MkMBER S;.Tt WITH1 N

THE PAST THREE Y EARS

U '

. . B -. DK- &:kD-- ;.F Journeys : None 01% 26% 72% 60% A t l e a s t once 89 37 87 74

I i. COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE' I

IRL I- L NL-- UK GR E E C ~

37% 52% 57% 60% 22% 56% 51% 41 64 72 72 34 66 68

i . COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE' I

Very Rather Rather Very Don't Total Index' much f o r against much know

I f o r against

Euro ean un i f i ca t i on : 52 35 4 2 7 100 3.05 30 51 7 2 10 100 2.74

&h f o r Rather fo r Rat her aga i ns t 26 47 10 3 14 100 2.47 Very much against 30 40 8 7 15 100 2.22

~

B DK D F IRL I L NL UK GR E E C ~

87% 44% 86% 68% 44% 59% 74% 74% 30% 65Il 64% Hi on : bor Agai ns t 78 31 65 52 28 43 45 46 23 54 43

A7TITUDE TO ABOLITION OF FRONTIER CHECKS AND FORMALITIES I N RELATION TO A T m D E TO tUROPEAN UNIFICATION

1 2. "VERY MUCH FOR" OR "RATHER FOR", BY COUNTRY I .

Weighted average. "Very much for" = 4; "very much against" = 1; don' t knows are not included i n the calculat ion.

W3W lW931 NW3dOtlfl3 W JO NOIlW3tl3 2’11

- P I -

- 15 -

Index'

I I I

I

.-.

3.58 3.50 3.58 3.35 3.52 3.71 3.70 3.51 3.74 : 3.60

-;; _ - ,

- -

~ Table 8

CREATION OF A EUROPEAN LEGAL ARC-

__.: .. .

I 8 DM 0 F I R 1 I L 1 I L I UK 1 6R lEC1

. -

Weighted average.

calculation.

Including Greece i n 1985. * "Very much for" = 1 , "very much against" = 1; don't knows excluded from

- 16 -

_- Table 9

CREATION OF A EUROPEAN LEGAL AREA I N RELATION TO LEFTIST OR RIGHTIST VIEWS - - _ - - 1 I (Whole C o m n i t y )

May-June 1978 Very much f o r Rat her f o r Rather against

Tota l

March-Apr;'-l-- i985 Very much f o r Rat her f o r Rather aga i n s t Very much against

Don' t know

Weighted average.

ca l cu l a ti on.

Incllading Greece i n 1985. * "Very much f o r " = 1, "very much against" = 1; don ' t knows excluded from

- 17 -

I I 3. INTRODUCTION OF A EUROPEAN CURRENCY

A currency is both an instrument and a symbol of national sovereignty. Replacement of a national currency by a European currency is accepted by the absolute majority of Italians (55%); i n three other countries - France, Belgium and Luxembourg - favourab'le rep1 ies exceeded unfavourable. other hand, are against replacement of their national currency by a European currency.

A similar question,Jhaough with- the choice of answers differently worded, was asked i n November/December 1976. comparable, i t would seem t h a t the number of-favourable answers has declinêd i n a l l the Member States, notably i n the Netherlands and even more so i n the United Kingdom.

The majority o f Britons (64%) and of Germans (54%), on the

--- 2- - --

Insofar as the answers are

Quite clearly i t is the idea of re lacin a national by a European currency which is arousing opposition, --eT-p or the replies t o the second

European currency, are f a r more +-€ìl- avoura e; i n fact they are positive i n question, which dealt w i t h the arallel use of national currencies and a

a l l the Member States and, on average, six Europeans out of ten support this idea. Those most i n favour are the French, the Luxembourgers and the Italians, while the Germans have the greatest reservations.

(See Tables 10 and 11)

The two replies have a positive correlation w i t h the level of education and preferences for l e f t i s t views, b u t above a l l w i t h attitudes t o Europea! unification and t o the country's membership of the European Comuni ty.

These f ind ings are taken from a survey carried out i n seven Comnunity countries by the European Omnibus Survey on behalf of several European banks. T h i s survey was concerned w i t h the ECU, wha t the general public knew about it and i t s increased use i n private transactions. The ful l f ind ings will be published la te r by the originators of this survey. Correlation coefficients ( r ) for the seven countries covered by the survey (weighted figures):

For or aga ins t EEC membership European unification j o o d or bad thing

Replacement of national by European currency .248 .254 Paral lel use o f two currencies .183 -215

- 18 -

TOtbl . . .

I

Table 10

100 100 100 100 100 1% I3G

REPLACEMENT OF NATIONAL CURRENCIES BY A EUROPEAN CURRENCY

NL I UK I GR

I I 51 I 30 I : 34 I 53 I : 15 I 17 I : = I I

27 I 12 1 : 29 I 17 I : 35 I 64 I : 9 1 7 1 :

.. - .

7 I

INTRODUCTION OF A EUROPEAN CURRENCY ALONGSIDE NATIONAL CURRENCIES

Excluding Northern I re land -- . - i n 1985. Weighted average. The f a c t t h a t t h i s option was f f e r e d i n 1985 probably reduced the tendency t o rep ly pos i t i ve ly .

- - --..l__l

- 19 -

a good th ing

The cor re la t ion i s f a r stronger w i th regard t o the f i r s t - more


binding - 'question than w i th regard t o the second.

ne i ther good nor bad

These resu l t s lead one t o th ink tha t Comnunity i n i t i a t i v e s i n the monetary f i e l d aimed a t strenghthening the actual and symbolic r o l e o f the ECU as a European currency would have a decisive impact on the creat ion o f a people's Europe.

Table 12

REPLACEMENT OF NATIONAL BY EUROPEAN CURRENCY I N RELATION TO OVERA LL AsSt SSMtNT OF COMMU NITY MEM BERSHIP

Feel t h a t Comnunity membership i s : . . ' I

For the in t roduct ion Õ f a European currencx rep1 acing nat ional currencies. Bel g i um Germany France I t a l y Luxembourg Netherl ands Great B r i t a i n

To t a 1

a good th ing

- 55%. 19 54 60 45 30 19 41

ne i ther good nor bad .

32% 8

39 47 35 10 9

22

-1

37% 4

42 49 37 19 8

15

-

Table 13

INTRODUCTION OF A EUROPEAN CURRENCY ALONGSIDE NATIONAL CURRENCIES I N RELATION TO O VERALL ASStSSMENT Ol- COMMUNITY MEM BERSH I P

Feel t h a t Comnunity membership i s :

For the in t roduc t ion o f a turopean currency alongside nat ional currencies: I Bel gium Germany France I t a l y Luxembourg Netherl ands Great B r i t a i n

To t a 1

67% 54 82 80 80 53 58 69

I 44% 28 - 68 63 55

- 42 - ._ 43

46

a bad thing

40% 37 69 66 63 35 41 45

CHAPTER I I I

ATTITUDES TOWARDS EUROPE AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

. . . .

- 21 -

. "Zn gen&, ahe you OR OR agahut eb$o/r;ts being

made ;to &dy Wutm Empe? h e you v u y muck bu4, $0 home extemt OR, Zo pome exrtent againslt OR vehy much against?"

/ III . . .:. . .

ATTITUDES TOWARDS EUROPE AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

This chapter, which i s the most important pa r t o f Eurobarometer, i s p a r t i c u l a r l y extensive t h i s s i x months. The usual questions about the respondents' fee l ings about European u n i f i c a t i o n and the advantages o f Community membership were supplemented by a ser ies o f questions on the devel opment o f understanding among the Member States, whether t h e i r countries had benef i ted o r not from Comnunity membership, the accession . o f Spain and Portugal, and proposals f o r a European p o l i t i c a l union.

It should be pointed out t h a t the on-the-spot interviews were car r ied

Overall, the major i t y o f interviews began around 26 March out i n the ten Member States between 14 March (Belgium) and 22 A p r i l

and ended around 12 Apr i l . We may therefore expect t o f i n d i n the answers given by the respondents some echo o f the outcome o f the European Council o f 29-30 March a t which agreement was reached on the accession o f Spain and Portugal.

- (Luxembourg).

I I I. 1. FOR OR AGAINST EUROPEAN UNI FICATION

(See Table 14 and Table 3 i n the annex)

- 22 -

x f x x

Table 14 OVERALL SUPPORT FOR UNI FICATION OF WESTERN EUROPE

f f

(1973 to 1985)

September 1973 Very much for Rather f o r Rather against Very much against

3 Don't know

F x 23 45 3 1

28

-

Total Index I 3.24 I 2.56 I 3.50 I 3.25 4

I I I 1975-1983 (13 pol ls ,

Very much f o r I 23 I 15 I 36 Rathér for.:- ' I 42 I 30' I 41 Rather against 1 6 1 1 8 1 7 Very much against 1 2 1 1 7 1 2

I 27 I ' ' 20 - 1 14 3 Don't know

24 51 6 2

17 " .

Total 4 Index.

I 100 I loo I 100 I 100 I 3.18 I 2.51 I 3.30 I 3.18

krch- Apr i l 1984 I I I I Very much f o r I 20 I 11 I 27 I 29 Rather .for I 47 25 I 45 I 52 Rather against I 9 . I 2 0 - d - 10 . I 6 Very much against I 3 I 23 I 3 I 2

Don't know 3 I 21 I 21 I 15 I 11

I R L x - 21 31 8 4

36

1 O0 3.07

- - - 21 40 9 4

26

1 O0 3.04

- - - 17 41 9 4

29

- 100 3.41 - -

37 44

5 1

13

1 O0 3.34

- - - 28 49 7 1

15

i 29 i S_i 36 i 28 i 18 i 32 I 5 1 I 3 0 I U 1 5 2 I 42 I 5 3 1 6 1 2 3 1 9 1 6 1 8 1 5

9 13 9 1 13 19 27

Very nuch f o r Rather for Rather against Very much against

3 Don ' t know

Index 4 1 3.23 2.33 3.26 3.24 3.01 3.28

I 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 1

Total I 100 100 100 100 . loo 100

I I I I March-Apri1 1985

Very much f o r 1 3 0 1 9 1 3 7 1 3 8 I 54 I 25 I 40 I 47 Rather f o r

Rather against I 4 1 2 1 1 6 1 5 Very much against 1 1 1 2 3 1 . 3 1 i

- 1 11 I 22 I 14 I O 3 Don't know

24 37

9 6

24

as 45

4 1

11

- 1 O0 3.57 - -

44 39

7 2 8

1 O0 3.34

- - - 43 39 6 2

10

44 '

38 9 4 5

1 O0 3.28

- - - 56 31 4 2 7

3.15 2.53 3.19

I I (5) I I

7 1 1 3 1 8 1 8 1 4 1 8 1 7 1 4 1

32 I 22 I 35 I 29 I 44 I 38 I 28 I 42 I

13 I 19 I 22 I 17 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 1

I I I I 3.18 I 2.89 1 3.14 1 3.16 1

30 I 17 I 28 I 25 I 51 I 45 1 29 I k6 I

7 I 1 6 I l l 1 1 0 I 9 1 1 5 1 2 3 1 1 5 1 3 1 7 1 9 1 4 1

30 52

7 3

- 3.18 - 33 46

1 6 1 4 ~ 11

I I I 44 I 35 1 47 I 1 1 1 9 1 8 1 4 1 7 1 3 1

25 I 32 I 30 I

I

11 I 9 4 1 8

30 I 34 . 38 I 28

17 I 23 Total

index4 I 3.27 I 2.26 I 3.28 I 3.35 I 3.'05 I 3.37 I 3.50 I 3.20 I 3.13 I 3.17 I 3;26

1 ., Excluding Northern Ireland in 1973. '

Wei ghted-average. In 1973 and 1975 one o f the set replies was 'indifferent"; the percentage o f those giving this answer has been added to the "don't knods".

L

This change o f wording may in part explain the later decline in the- number o f dön ' t knows. "Verymuch for'' = 4, "very much against" = 1; don't knows have been excluded from the calculation. Seven polls only, beginning in October 1980.-,

- 23 -

111.2. ATTITUDES TO THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

111.2.1. Understanding' between Comm; :ty countries

~ ~~ ~~

"Zn y o m opinion, o v a t h e h t 72 mo&, has t h e wzdm&udÚtg bedueen $he COWU 06 lthe Emopean Community [Common M M k W i n g e n u i n a m e d , d e a m e d 04 h a y e d about t h e

This question haz been asked several times since 1917 - e igh t times, t o be exact, the l a s t time being i n the autumn o f 1983 . It undoubtedly . . . ' . .

measures the.'respondents' impressions o f the events, regardless o f t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards u n i f i c a t i o n o r t h e i r overal 1 assessment o f Comnunity membership, although a l l these variables are correlated.

I n 1977-78 pos i t i ve r e p l i e i exceeded negative, but t h i s t rend was reversed i n 1981, 1982 and 1983. reversal a t present, but i t i s only i n i t s infancy and i s absent i n some Member States. Three countries show a strong increase i n pos i t i ve repl ies: France and, t o a lesser extent, Luxembourg and I t a l y , i.e. those countr ies where the p o l l was car r ied out wholly o r p a r t l y a f t e r the agreement on en1 argement.

opinion which, a t l eas t i n some countries, immediately regains confidence when decisions o f some degree o f importance - p o s i t i v e l y presented and perceived - give i t reason t o do so.

There appears t o be a new trend

- .- - This s e n s i t i v i t y t o current events shows up the f l e x i b i l i t y o f publ ic


111.2.2. Feelings about whether one's country has benef i ted o r not from Comnunity membership

"Taking evmy;tking in20 c o n 6 i d W o n , wo& you hay M y a m c o u m y )la6 on ba5znce benebi ted OR n o t &om being a membm 0 6 .the Emopean CommunLty [Common Mmka) ? I r

This question was asked f o r the fou r th time since the spr ing o f 1983. There are no major di f ferences i n comparison w i th e a r l i e r p o l l s and h a l f the persons asked f e l t t h a t t h e i r country had benef i ted from Comnunity

'membership, i n f a c t the proport ion i s even three persons out o f f ou r i n Luxembourg and close t o two out o f three i n I t a l y , the Netherlands and Ireland.

The wording used i n 1978 was s l i g h t l y d i f f e ren t .

- 24 -

8 DK- o f IR1 I 1 Iyl UK I SA IEC' 1 - x I -%-- I % 1 % I X I % I % I % I X I X I X i

- -_-_

October-November 1977 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Increased I n general I 21 *I 19 I 26 I 24 I 42 I 35 1 28 I 14 I 32 I : I 98 1 Stayed about the same I 34 I 40 I 36 I 46 I 38 I 22 I 41 I 48 I 42 I : I 88 I Decreased I n general I 18 I 31 I 24 I 16 I 9 I 18 I 19 I 24 I 17 I : I 19 - 1 . .

Don ' t know ~ 2 7 ~ 1 0 ( 1 4 ~ 1 4 ~ 1 1 ~ 2 5 ~ 1 2 ( 1 4 ~ 9 1 : I 1 5 1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 : 100 '_ .

October-November 1978 I & ,. Increased I n general : I 2 8 I Stayed about the same I 35 I 43 I 37 I 46 I 31 I 25 I 53 I 54 I 43 I : I 38 I Decreased I n general I 8 I 19 I 9 I 11 I 9 I 10 I 10 I 11 I 17 I : I 12 I

Don't know I 3 0 I 2 2 1 2 1 1 20 1 1 4 I 3 2 I lÓ1 22 1 1 3 I : I 2 2 I Total

I 2 7 I 1 6 1 -3 3 I 2 3 I 4 6 I 3 3 1 2 7 I 1 3 I 2 7 I

1 100 I 100 I 100 1 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I : I 100 i'

- 1981 (two pol ls) I I I I I I I I I I Increased I n general Stayed about the sam I 34 1 37 I 33 I 49 1- 45 I 38 I 43 I 46 I 36 I 31 I 39 I Decreased I n general I 31 I 36 I 29 I 21 I 18 I 25 I 29 I 33 I 43 1 10 I 29 I

Don't know 1 2 5 ) 1 7 1 1 7 ] 1 4 ) 1 2 1 1 7 1 7 1 1 1 1 8 1 3 3 1 1 5 1

Total

I 10 I 10 I 21 1 16 I 25 I -20 1 21 I 10 I 13 I 26 I 17

I I00 I 100 1 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 1

- 1982 (tuo po l ls ) I I I I I I I I I I I i Increased I n general 8 1 11 I 22 1 12 I Stayed about the same I 35 I 45 I 38 I 47 I 45 I 40 I 45 I 45 I 44 I 33 I 42 I Decreased I n general I 32 I 30 I 37 I 27 1 19 I 22 I 32 I 33 I 37 I 11 1 30 I

Don't know 1 2 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 6 1 2 7 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 8 1 3 4 1 1 6 1 Total

I 9 I 11 I 11 I 13 I 20 1 11 I 10 1

I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 1'

E (two pol ls) I I I I I I I I I I I Increased I n general Stayed about the same I 37 I 46 I 46 I 51 I 42 I 46 I 47 1 50 I 54 I 32 I 48 I Decreased I n general i 25 1 27 I 28 I 26 1 22 I 20 1 34 1 30 I 24 I 11 I 25 I

Don't know ) 2 4 1 1 6 1 1 4 ) 1 4 1 1 7 1 2 3 I 7 1 1 2 1 1 0 ) 3 5 1 1 6 I

Increased I n general I 17 I 10 I 14 I 30 1 20 I 20 I 28 I 11 I 17 I 17 1 19 I Stayed about the same I 146 I 42 I 48 I 47 I 47 I 49 I 50 I 53 I 57 I 33 I 49 I Decreased I n general I *23 1 28 I 25 I 12 I 14 I 8 I 13 I 21 I 17 I 18 I 17 I

Don't know 1 1 4 1 2 0 I 1 3 I l l I l 9 I 2 3 I 9 1'15 1 9 I 3 2 I 1 5 I Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

I 1 4 I l l 1 1 2 I 9 I l 9 I l l I 1 2 I 8 I 1 2 I 2 2 I l l

Total 1 lo@ I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I' March-Apr11 1985 I I 1 I I I I I

Table 15

UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES OF THE COMMUNITY

Weighted average. Including Greece as from 1981.

- 25 -

\

The United Kingdom i s th: cmly Member Xa te where the major i t y o f

~2 i n a t t i tudes appears t o be emerging respondents took the view ty:: t h e i r cowìtry had not benefited from Community membership. No c ; there.

The rep l ies given by Germans and those given by Danes have become p r e t t y s imi lar , a f a c t a t t r i bu tab le t o an appreciable decl ine i n pos i t i ve responses from the former f o r a t leas t the l a s t two years.

(See Table 16)

111.2.3. Overal 1 assessment o f Communi ty membership

~~~

"Genehaeey bpeaking, do you Xhink .tht y o u coun;thy'b membmkip ob the Ew~opean Communcty (Common M a k & ) A a good Zking,' à bad Zking ok r ncithert good nok bad?"

I n the spr ing o f 1985 an average o f s i x persons out o f ten (57%) f e l t t h a t t h e i r country's membership o f the European Comnunity was a good thing, as compared w i th lone ..in ten (12%) who thought the opposite. resu l t s are stable, bu t di f ferences are t o b e observed from one Member State t o another as regards l eve l s and trends.

The

The countries g iv ing the most pos i t i ve rep l i es continue t o be Luxembourg, the Netherlands and I t a l y , c losely fol lowed by France and Belgium. The countr ies g iv ing the l eas t pos i t i ve rep l i es are the United Kingdom and Denmark, though pos-it ive rep l i es s t i l l outweigh negative i n the Uni t fd Kingdom whi le negative rep l i es s l i g h t l y outweigh pos i t i ve i n Denmark.

It i s notable t h a t 68% o f the French regard Community membership as a good thing, whi le t h i s i s t r u e o f only 54% o f the Germans. highest percentage i n France since the spr ing o f 1974.

This i s the


* * *

As we have already stressed, the replhes t o t h i s question do not overlap the rep l i es t o the previous one, something which i s borne out by the f a c t t h a t i n seven out o f ten countries the percentage o f respondents who fee l t h a t t h e i r country 's Comnunity membership i s a good th ing i s higher than the percentage o f those who fee l t h a t t h e i r country has not benef i ted from such membership. These seven countr ies are the s i x founding Member States and - now - the United Kingdom.-

' Danish opinion has been characterized since 1973 - when Denmark jo ined the Community - by an almost equal percentage o f pos i t i ve repl ies, negative rep l i es and don' t knows. another are very s l i g h t and thus o f l i t t l e s igni f icance. See Eurobarometer No 22, December 1984, page 33.

Changes from m e h a l f year t o

- 26 -

- Total

T a b l e 16

FEELINGS ABOUT WHETHER ONE'S COUNTRY HAS BENEFITED OR NOT FROM COMMUN I T Y MEMBERSHIP

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Total -

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 -100 100 100

Weighted average .

100 Total 100 luo 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

100 100 Tvtal 100 100 100 100

- 27 -

Table 17 GENERAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS ONE I S COUNTRY I S MEMBERSHIP

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Total xndut3

I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I : I 100 I 2.64 I 2.13 I 2.66 I 2.64 I 2.45 I 2.78 I 2.70 I 2.68 I 1.97 I : 1 2.52

1974-1982 (18 polls) I I I I I I I I I I ( 4 ) I I A good thing I 59 I 35 I 59 1 57 I 52 I 73 I 75 I 75 I 33 1 40 I 56 I Neither good nor bad I 22 I 26 I 525- I 28 1 . 23 I 16 1 15 I 14 1 23 I 27 I 23 I A bad thing 1 4 1 2 9 1 6 1 7 1 1 9 ) 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 7 1 2 0 ) 1 3 1

Don't knar I l 5 I l O I l O I 8 1 6 1 7 1 6 1 7 1 7 1 1 3 1 8 1

Total xnex3 - 1983 (2 polls) I I - I I .I I I I I I I I A good thing - 1 6 2 1 35 I 5 9 I 5 4 I 4 3 I 7 0 I 7 4 I 7 8 I 3 2 I 4 4 1 5 5 I k i t h e r good nor bad I 19 I 29 1- 25 I 30 I 27 I 17 I 17 I 13 I 29 I 30 I 25 I A bad thing I 4 [ 2 5 1 : h * 7 I 8 1 2 3 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1

Don't know I 1 5 I 1 1 I 9 1 8 1 7 1 8 1 4 1 5 1 7 1 1 4 1 8 1

Total 1ndCx3 I 2.60 I 2.11 I 2.56 I 2.50 I 2.22 I 2.71 I 2.72 I 2.78 I 2.00 I 2.38 I 2.46

I I I I I I I I I I I I Harch-April 1984

A good thing I 59 I 31 I 53 1 62 I 43 I 70 I 80 I 80 I 34 I 38 I 55 I Mither good nor bad I 25 I 30 I 31 I 27 I 27 I 20 I 14 I 13 1 30 I 35 i 27 I A bad thing I 7 1 2 9 1 - S I 4 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 ) 3 0 1 1 8 1 1 1 I

Don't know I Q I l O I - 1 1 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 3 1 4.1 6 1 9 1 7 1

I 2.58 I 2.02 I 2.54 I 2.62 I 2.22 I 2.71 I 2.80 I 2.79 I 2.04 I 2.22 I 2.48 1 Index October-Noverber 1984-

A good thing I 65 I 33 I 57 I 63 I 47 I 72 I 80 I 79 I 38 I 45 I 58 I Mither good nor bad I 25 I 29 1 33 I 27 I 27 I 20 I 15 I 13 I 25 I 29 I 26 I A bad thing 1 5 1 2 8 1 5 1 5 1 2 0 ) 2 1 4 1 S I 3 3 1 1 6 1 1 1 1

Total I loo I l o o I loo I loo I l o o I loo I io0 1 i o0 I loo I l o o I loo 1 3

I I I I I I I I I I I I

Don't know I S I 1 0 1 5 1 s l 6 1 6 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 0 1 5 1 * .

Total Index I 2.63 I 2.06 I 2.55 I 2.60 I 2.29 I 2.73 I 2.77 I 2.78 I 2.05 1 2.33 I 2.49

3

Total

i 2.62 1 1.98 I 2.52 I 2.65 I 2.35 I 2.72 I 2.84 I 2.77 I 2.06 I 2.32 I 2.49

Excluding Northern I re land i n 1973 and 1974. Weighted average. "A good th ing" = 3, " ne i ther good nor bad" = 2, "a bad th ing" = 1; don ' t knows are excluded f rom the calculat ion. Five p o l l s only, as from October 1980.

Inc lud ing Greece as from the autumn o f 1980.

- -

- 28 -

Cor re la t i ve l y there are appreciably fewer people i n a l l the Member States, except Denmark, who f e e l t h a t t h e i r count ry 's Comnunity membership i s a bad t h i n g than there are people who th i nk t h a t t h e i r country has not benef i ted from t h a t membership.

This means t h a t overa l l assessment o f Comnunity membership i s under la id by motives which go fa r beyond a mere ca l cu la t i on o f short- term "benef i ts" ( i f we can even describe as ca lcu la t ion a swing from one more o r less vague subject ive assessment t o another).

(See Graph No 1)

To obta in a c leare r p ic ture, i t i s i n te res t i ng t o break down the respondents by the rep l i es they g ive t o each o f these two questions.

That i s the purpose o f Table 18, which shows that , i n the Comnunity as a whole, o f the 32% o f those who fee l t h a t t h e i r country has not benefited from Community membership two t h i r d s (i.e. 20% o f g r a n d . ~ ._ ' t o t a l ) v e r t h e l e s s f e e l t h a t t h e i r country 's Community membership i s a good t h i n g o r a t l e a s t t h a t i t i s ne i ther good nor bad; I n o ther words, there- is an--underlying degree o f approval o f the Comnunity o r a t l e a s t a wi l l ingness t o g ive the Community the bene f i t o f the doubt even among those who f e e l t h a t i t s advantages do not outweigh - o r no longer outweigh - i t s disadvantages f o r t h e i r country.

(See Table 18)

This r e l a t i o n between perception -o f- resu l t rand ove ra l l assessment o f Comnunity membership obviously var ies from Member State t o Member State.

The fo l low ing t ab le i l l u s t r a t e s these di f ferences. It was s t ructured i n the same way as the preceding table, but, i n the i n t e r e s t o f greater c l a r i t y i n comparisons between countr ies, the don ' t knows have been l e f t out.

The r e s u l t s show that , i n the s i x founding Member States, among those respondents who f e e l t h a t t h e i r country has not benef i ted from Comnunity membership the ma jo r i t y nevertheless express doubt o r even a pos i t i ve a t t i t u d e i n t h e i r overa l l assessment o f the Comnunity. -Replies expressing doubt a re more f requent- in Germany. are more o r less equal i n Belgium and I t a l y .

- -

The two types o f r ep l y Pos i t i ve rep l i es are i n the

. . ma jo r i t y i n the Netherlands , Luxembourg and France. . *

The s t ruc tu re o f t he rep l i es t o these two questions i s very d i f f e r e n t i n the other Member States: the ma jo r i t y o f respondents who f e e l t h a t t h e i r country has no t benef i ted express a negative ove ra l l assessment on Comnunity membership; t h i s phenomenon i s p a r t i c u l a r l y not iceable i n Denmar k.

What conclusions are we t o draw? It i s l i k e l y t h a t the f a c t o f having experienced the advantages and drawbacks o f l i f e w i t h i n the Community f o r a f a i r l y lenghty per iod o f t ime enables the c i t i zens o f a Member State t o make a more djspasgionate assessment (or has l e d them t o accept Community m e m b e r s h i p - a ~ _ ~ ~ m a t t e r o f course). t h i n k t h a t the Tact' that some Member States have given t h e i r c i t i z e n s too l i m i t e d an image o f the Community - a pure ly economic image o r something seen i n budgetary o r bookkeeping terms - has helped t o render the support o f those c i t i z e n s l ess r e l i a b l e i n times o f d i f f i c u l t y .

A t the same time, one might wel l

- 29 -

:. Graph 1

ATTITUDE T O MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMUNITY * ' AND FEELING THAT ONE'S. COUNTRY HAS BENEFITED FROM BEING A MEMBER

(1983-1985)

... ' I

,I i

-;----I ;. -. \ _.._ : !

i . ----I

: I ' I

! ...

i

- 30 -

I

OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY I N RELATION TO FEELINGS ABOUT WHETHER ONE'S COUNTRY HAS BENEFITED OR NOT

( X o f persons pol led throughout the Community)

The fo l lowing fee l t h a t t h e i r country:

- has benefited I , & - A $ " I -- has' not-benef i ted

Don' t .know I Total

Weighted f igures.

Overal 1 assessment o f Comuni ty membersh i p

Good th ing

42

8

7

57% . -

Neither good nor bad

6

I 2

6

Bad th ing

_ .

1 -

11

. 12%.

. -

Total Don ' t

- "

1

1

5

50%

32%

18%

(N=9929) , 7% I loo%

. -. . . . . -

~

- 31 -

Community membership

A clood Neither 1 A bad

Table 19

Total o f res pondents

OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY I N RELA'ION TO FEELINGS ABOUT WHETHER ONE'S COUNTRY HAS BENEFITED OR NOT

(% o f respondents i n each country)

th ing good nor bad

60 8 12 14

72 22

81 4 - 8 5

FOUNDING MEMBER STATES Has benef i ted 68 i 32

6 100%

I th ing

(N = 4233)

- 85 2 15

Has not benefited

Total-

I I

79 16 5

61 7 1 If 13 7

72 20 8

49 6

-

12 25 i I 61 - _ _ 31 8

o f whi ch :

100% (N = 923)

69 31

100% (N = 756)

55 45

100% (N = 802)

Luxembour df i ted Has not benef i ted

Total

Nether1 ands Has benef i ted Has not benef i ted

Tota 1

France m b e n e f i ted

Has not benef i ted

Total

I t a l y Has benef i ted Has not benef i ted

Total

3elgium Has no t benef i ted Has not benef i ted

Total

% % e n e f i ted Has not benef i ted

Total -.

7 4 - 11 I

72-21-1 7 I 100% I

See note page 32.

- 32 -

38

Table 19 (Contd.)

OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY I N RELATION TO FEELINGS ABOUT WHETHER ONE'S COUNTRY HAS BENEFITED OR NOT

27 35 100% (N = 1207)

(% o f respondents i n each country)

59

53 3

56 II

35 2.

36

OTHER COUNTRIES

United Kin dom d d

19 22 100%

10 2 65 13 19 35

. 23 21 100%

17 4 56 .- 10 33 44

27 37 100%

( N = 867)

(N = 726)

(N = 761)

Has not benef I ,ec -,

Total

I r e l and m e n e f i ted

Has not benefited

Total

Has benefited Has not benefited

Total

. -. ~ - Greece

--

Denmark m e n e f i ted

Has not benef i ted . -.

Tota 1

Total o f res pondent s

Commun i t y members h i p

th ing I ;;;d nor1 th ing I

The Member States are ranked i n descending order o f the percentages o f "good thi'ng'' rep l ies among respondents who fee l t ha t t h e i r country has not benefited from Community membership. the proport ion i s 8/15 = 53%, whi le i n Germany i t i s 12/45 = 27% and i n Denmark..l/44 = - 2%- ~ ___ - . - _ .

For example, i n Luxembourg

- 33 -

c

"Two counX~~Leb have u k e d t o j o i n t h e Ewr~pean CommunLty. Can you m " b e / L which oned .they ~ e ? "

111.3.

were asked on t h i s subject, some o f which had already been asked i n previous surveys, which-allows useful comparisons t o be made.

THE ACCESSION OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL

Spain and Portugal a r e t o j o i n the Community. A number o f questions

111.3.1. Awareness o f the event

Moreover, i n a l l countr ies there are considerable di f ferences depending on the l eve l of educatipn and degree o f 'cogni t ive mobil iza- t i o n ' o f the persons interviewed. forthcoming accession than men.

Women are much less aware o f the

Table 20

ACCESSION OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL: AWARENESS OF THE EVENT

Named Spain and Portugal Named Spain o r Portu,gal Did not name e i t h e r of the two o r d i d not rep l y

Total

Y . 83

8

9

I100 -

NL x

62 17

21

100 - -

UK 7 8

42 20

38

100 -

- GR 7

51 9

40

100 - -

Ë? -3-

58 13

29

100 - ._ -. ..

Cognit ive mob i l i za t ion ( o r leadership ra t i ng ) i s measured i n Eurobarometer by combining the rep l i es t o two questions, one on frequency o f p o l i t i c a l discussions and the other on a b i l i t y t o persuade others. Weighted average.

- 34 -

111.3.2. For o r against Spanish and Portuguese accession

" T k i n f i g about Spain j o in ing f i e Euhopean C o n w n ~ , me you hlttrongly 6 0 4 A O m W f w t 604, home- whaZ against 04 4;thongty a g a t ?

And t k i n h g a b o d Pokakgat (. . . ) ft1

The f i r s t th ing t o note i s t h a t the rpp l ies concerning Spain and Portugal respect ively were very simi lar, which may be because the two questions were worded i n the same way and coupled together i n the questionnaire20r because a t t i tudes t o each o f the two countries r e a l l y are the same.

On average, s i x Europeans i n ten are personally i n favour o f Spanish and Portuguese accession; approximately one i n f ive have no opinion; 18 and 16% respect ively are opposed.

The number o f 'don' t knows' varies according t o the country: around 40% i n Greece, Denmark and Ireland, as against 14-15% i n France and 3% i n Luxembourg.

Differences i n a t t i t u d e among the respondents are no t very marked, but are not ins ign i f i can t : the countries most i n favour are I t a l y , Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; those leas t i n favour (although there i s s t i l l a large major i t y supporting accession) are Denmark and France.

Before these resu l ts are analysed i n greater de ta i l , they may be compared w i th those produced by a previous survey carr ied out i n October 1983 i n the ten Comnunity countries on behalf o f the Centro De Investigaciones Sociologicas i n Madrid.

I n a l l countries, except Greece, there was a sharp decrease i n the number o f 'don't knows' between autumn 1983 and spring 1985 as the presa reported on d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered _and-progr_gss made i n negotiations.

The cor re la t ion between the rep l ies from a l l the ind iv iduals interviewed i n 1985 i s r = .902 and t h a t between the nat ional averages i n the ten countries i s r = .928. People i n the United Kingdom are, however, s l i g h t l y more i n favour of Portuguese entry. The resu l ts o f t h i s survey, carr ied out by the Gallup i ns t i t u tes , were k ind l y made avai lab le by Prof. J Santamaria Ossorio, head o f the CEIS. The exception i n the case of Greece i s no doubt due t o the f a c t t h a t the 1983 survey was r e s t r i c t e d t o the Athens metropoli tan region, whi le i n 1985 the-whale of - GrPece was covered.

- 35 -

A t the same time, the number o f people i n favour increased i n most countries, inc lud ing France:

-- For

63% 59

51 50 47

- .44 38

-

(52 1 I t a l y Luxembourg Greece Belgium Nether1 ands Germany France , . t -2;&L.*-l : __ - United Kingdom I r e 1 and Denma r k -- - . --- -

I-.

Against

12% 17

(25) 8

12 22

19

-

- 27- - -

.Ï ----I

At t i t ude t o accession o f Spain

March-April 1985

For

74% 79 42 65 67 66 58 50 40 40

-

Against

9% 18 15 11 12 16 28 - - 20 17 21

_ _ - ~ _. . - - ___._ - -- -_ - - (For d e t a i l s see Table 21 below)

An examination o f the resu l t s and the underlying trend shows the complexity o f the var iables in f luencing a t t i tudes t o problems o f t h i s sort.

I n i t i a l l y , many members o f the pub l ic are ignorant, i n d i f f e r e n t o r undecided and the number o f 'don' t knows' i s high, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the l eas t educated and l e a s t mobil ized sections o f the population and i n countr ies where the average leve l o f education i s lower than elsewhere.

Subsequently, information i s disseminated by the media and a debate i s established between supporters and opponents: a t f i r s t t h i s debate i s l i m i t e d t o the most educated, mobil ized and p o l i t i c a l l y aware sections, and then gradual ly gain ground among the r e s t o f the population. There i s no doubt t h a t ce r ta in var iables give r i s e t o d iv is ions between d i f f e r e n t a t t i tudes. I n the case i n question the main var iab le appears t o have been a person's a t t i t u d e t o h i s own country's membership o f the European Comnunity.

A t present, among those interviewed and expressing an opinion, whether the accession o f Spain and Portugal i s i n question, there i s l i t t l e difference between the a t t i t udes o f men and those o f women: The most educated and mobil ized people are more o f ten i n favour. Contrary t o what might have been expected, p o l i t i c a l leanings - measured here by whether people see themselves as ' l e f t ' o r ' r i g h t ' - make very l i t t l e di f ference. un i f i ca t i on , who have a pos i t i ve view o f t h e i r country's membership o f the Community, a lso tend t o have a pos i t i ve a t t i t u d e t o the accession of Spain and Portugal; t h i s i s especia l ly t r u e i n Greece.

On the other hand, those most i n favour o f European

\ ' . (See Table 22)

Countries ranked i n descending order o f number o f favourable rep l i es given i n 1983. * See note 1, page 37.

- 3 6 - c

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ~ ~ d c ~ ~ 3.21 2.73 2.79 2.63 2.81 3.05 2.98 2.98 2.66 2.81 2.82

Table 21

k r c h - b r 1 1 1985 , 1 I

FOR OR AGAINST SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE ACCESSION

I

1. pAJ October 1983* Strongly for So#what for S a w h a t agalnst Strongly agalnst

Don't know

100 100 100 100 3.26 2.76 3.06 2.76

100 100 2.97 3.30

. . . - Strongly for. . .: ,,:,,<. , , t j - i - . I

Somhat for . _ . onewh what against . . .. Strongly against

. ., ..'. , -- . . ? - .

i

Don't know . .. .

Total . -

I100 100 100 100 100

I 13.17 2.76 2.75 2.57 2.79

2. PORTUW - October 19832 Strongly for Sameuhat for Somewhat aga1 nst Strongly against

Don't know

Total ~ ~ d e x ~

100 100 100 100 100 100 2.99 2.92 2.92 2.81 2.76 2 . 8 6

March-April 1985 Strongly for Sonewhat for Solnewhat aga1 nst Strongly agalnst

Don't know

Total Index .

3 100 I100 I100 I100 I100 I100 I100 I100 I100 I100 I 100 1' 3.24 12.77 13.03 12.78 13.08 13.28 13.16 13.10 13.04 12.92 13.06 I

44 35 - 13

5 3 -

1 O0 3.22 - -

22 34 13 7

24

29 38 7 5

21

1 O0 3.14

- - -

13 33 10 4

40

18 32 12 8

30

1 O0 -

2.85 -

10 31 8 6

45

100 100 2.92 3.01

I I I I

I 22 I 14 I

Weighted auerage. * GALLUP survey c a r r i e d out on behalf of the Centro de Inves t igaciones Sociologicas (Madrid). Does not inc lude Northern I re land and, i n Greece, relates only t o the Athens metropolitan region. "Strongly for" = 4, "st rongly agains t" = 1; d o n ' t knows excluded.

- 37. -

~

~ Total

l

Table 22

A good Neither A bad th ing good nor th ing

bad

ATTITUDES TO SPANISH ACCESSION I N RELATION TO OVERALL APPRAISAL OF OWN COUNTRY'S MEMBERSHIP

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Don't know

(% o f respondents throughout Comnunity) 2

35 42 9

- 3 11

. .. . _. . :. .

13 35 14 8 30

Spani sh access i on Strongly f o r Somewhat f o r Somewsist against Stronsiy against

Don't know -

Total

Index

-

3 -3.23 2.77 2.27 2.76 3.01

i"

Right

% 15 39

10 13

I 23

Extreme r i g h t

% 21 33 12 19 15

ib

7 23 2 3; .'>

18 - 31

'k

6 19

4 63

a

'k

25 36 12 6 21

I I I I 4

I n France, f o r example, where Spanish accession had been strongly opposed by the Comnunist par ty and the Rassemblement pour l a République (Gaul l is ts) , i t appears t h a t ( a t leas t a t nat ional l eve l ) these a t t i t udes have not had much inf luence on the mass o f the population:

The French and t h e i r a t t i t u d e t o Spanish accession according t o t h e i r p o l i t i c a l leanings

Strongly f o r Somewhat f o r Somewhat against Strongly against

Don't know

To t a 1

Index 3

N I 89 I 2G7

Centre

14 43 21 9 13

100

2.71

359

Weighted average. "Strongly f o r " = 4, "strongly against'' = 1; don' t knows excluded.

- 38 -

111.3.3. For whom is.Spanish accession a good o r bad thing?

. .. "kt u6 t a t h a b d molte a b o d Spdin. 15 Spain

j o h u t h e E ~ p e a n C o m m d y a ) Vo you ltkink Itkis would be a good t k i n g , OR.

Spain'b &&.ute, a bad $king OR. n a m good noR. bad?

2 h u ~ evdukged ... ? 6 ) And (ok t h e ~~e 0 4 the E m p a n Communi..ty

I p " c) And boa (yam couWyl, i n pa~~XcUaan ... . . _ . L

The aim of t h i s question was t o provide a more deta i led analysis o f a t t i tudes t o Spanish accession. It was log i ca l t o expect, f o r example, t ha t some people would be f a i r l y unenthusiastic about Comnunity enlargement (because they would consider such a step detrimental t o the fu tu re o f the Comnunity o r t o the imnediate in te res ts o f t h e i r country, region o r occupation), whi le assuming tha t accession would benef i t Spain i t se l f . -

survey, revealing t h a t on average seven Europeans i n ten f e l t t ha t accession would be 'Ia good thing"..\for Spain, whereas fewer than three i n ten held the same view i n respect o f the in te res ts o f t h e i r own countries. Six and h a l f years l a t e r the resu l ts are more o r less the same.

_ - * . - -- - _- c - .

Two o f theseiques,ti.ons had already been asked i n the autumn 1978

Let us go i n t o some d e t a i l by examining i n tu rn the rep l ies t o each o f the three questions.

1. Good o r bad f o r the fu tu re o f Spain?

I n the spring o f 1985, 70% o f those questioned f e l t t h a t accession would be a good th ing f o r Spain: the f igures were a l i t t l e higher i n Luxembourg, I t a l y and the Netherlands and somewhat lower i n Greece; but the differences are small.

Th? resu l t s i n each country are very s im i l a r . to those obtained i n 1978, although there was a s i g n i f i c a n t decl ine i n the number o f pos i t i ve rep l ies i n Denmark and an. increase i n Luxembourg. The case o f Denmark i s p a r t i c u l a r l y in te res t ing and remains an exception: i n t ha t country, the number o f 'don ' t knows' increased sharply between 1978 and 1985, which indicates a growing reluctance t o give an opinion on the entry o f others i n t o a Comnunity which i s s t i l l opposed by a section o f the Danish publ ic i t s e l f .

(See Table 23)

This question re lates only t o Spain i n order not t o overload the questionnai re. * Correlat ion of r = .605 between the natioGal averages o f the nine count r ies -fo r which resu l ts are avai lab le f o r the two surveys.

- 39 -

Table 23

B DK I SPANISH ACCESSION. A GOOD OR BAD THING FOR THE FUTURE OF ,?AIN?

D F LRL I L WL UK 6R EC1 X X X X X X X t X t t

12.83 2 I Index

There is a positive correlation between the replies to this question and the replies to the following questions; however, as we shall see below, the correlation between the rep1 ies to these questions themselves is much weaker. advantages to the Spaniards in seeking entry is relatively independent of what his views might be o f the benefits of accession to the Comnunity and his own country respectively.

This is fairly logical: a person's opinion on the

2.82 2.83 2.85 2.74 2.88 2.75 2.90 2.68 : 2.82 -

For the same reason, there is a lesser degree of correlation between the replies on the benefits o f acsession to Spain and respondents' personal attitudes to enlargement than between replies to the following two questions:

2 2.75 I lndex

Weighted average. "Good thing" = 3, "bad thing" = 1; don't knows exduded. See above paragraph II1.3.2., page 36.

Including Greece in 1985. .

2.66 2.76 2.83 2.68 2.86 2.86 2.03 2.64 2.53 2.76

- 40 -

These are questions o f opinion, the rep l ies t o which depend on the interviewee's educational background and general a t t i t u d e t o the Comnunity. considered t o be "a good thing", he tends t o fee l t h a t i t w i l l be a good th ing f o r Spain. sha l l see, some people may th ink tha t i t i s probably good f o r Spain, but doubt t h a t i t i s good f o r the Comnunity o r f o r t h e i r own country.

I f h i s own country's membership o f the Comnunity i s

However, the opposite i s not necessari ly true: as we

-

2 2. A good o r bad th ing f o r the fu tu re o f the C o m n i t y ?

Only 45% o f those asked fee l t h a t the entry o f Spain w i l l be "a good thing" f o r the fu tu re o f the Comnunity.

There are s l i g h t l y more 'don' t knows' than f o r the previous question, but fewer than might have been expected. Once again the Danes and Greeks are the most re luctant t o give a reply.

O f the respondents, the Greeks and I t a l i a n s are the most posi t ive, and the Danes the least.

The tab le o f in tercorre lat ions, f o r the t o t a l number (unweighted) o f interviewees, i s as follows:

General impressi on o f Comnun i ty membership Personal a t t i t u d e t o Spanish access i on Good th ing f o r Spain Good th ing f o r the Comnunity Good th ing f o r own country

General i m- pression of Comnun i ty membership

-

.358

. 343

. 301

-311

Personal a t t i tude t o Spanish access i on

.260

. 563

. 570

Good th ing f o r Spain

- .249

.236

Good t h i ng f o r the Comuni t y

- .616 '

Good th ing f o r own country

This i s the f i r s t time t h i s question has been asked. L

- 41 -

A comparison o f the indices representing the rep l ies t o the f i r s t ("good thing" f o r Spain) and second questions ("good thing" f o r the Comnunity) reveals t h a t the Danes show the biggest divergence: f a i r l y pos i t i ve on the f i r s t question (more so than the Greeks), they are on the whole negative on the second.

The rep l ies from the French are t o some extent s imi lar , except t ha t the major i t y are pos i t i ve i n both cases. The Greeks are a case apart: the number who fee l t h a t Spanish accession w i l l be 'Ia good thing" f o r the fu tu re o f the Community s l i g h t l y exceeds the number who fee l the same way about the fu tu re o f Spain.

(See Table 24)

Table 24

SPANISH ACCESS-ION: 'A GOOD'OR BAD THING FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COhUNITY?

)hrch/Aprll 1985

Good th ing Nei ther good nor bad Bad th ing

Don't know

Total

Index 3

-, - . B OK ' D F I R L I L NL UK GR EC2

\ 47 I 19 I 45 I 39 I 41 I 58 I 50 I 49 I 37 1 48 I 45 I 26 I 1 8 I 3 1 I 2 9 I 2 0 I l 9 I l 9 I 2 4 I 3 0 I 9 I 2 6 I 10 I 2 4 I l l i 1 8 15 I 6 I 2 0 1 1 2 I 1 6 I 5 I 1 3 I 17 I 39 I 13 I 14 I 24 I 17 I 11 I 15 I 17 I 38 I 16 I

-

One p lausib le explanation might be t h a t some Greeks are s t i l l somewhat disappointed by the res6 l t s o f t h e i r accession t o the Community (see above, page 32) and p ro jec t t h e i r d is i l lus ionment onto Spain, although they do not f ee l t h a t Spanish accession should adversely a f fec t the fu tu re o f the Comnunity i t s e l f . Weighted average. "Good thing" = 3, "bad th ing" = 1; don' t knows excluded.

- 42 -

D F I RL

A good th ing -13 - 4 - I -16 Nei her good nor bad + 8 - 3 - 1 A bad th ing + 8 +16 +19

Don't know - 3 - 9 - 2

3.

NL

- 6 +16 -10

O

Good o r bad th ing f o r own country?

Only 34% o f interviewees i n March-April 1985 fee l t h a t Spanish accession w i l l be "a good thing" f o r t h e i r own country, against 21% who hold the opposite view and 29% who are undecided.

The percentage of 'don' t knows' i s about the same as w i th the previous question: more than twice as high i n Greece and Denmark as i n the other countries. . - . -

Among the respondents, those expecting Spanish accession t o have a f a i r l y pos i t i ve e f f e c t f o r t h e i r country are, i n descending order, the I t a l i a n s and Belgians, the Luxembourgers, and the Germans. By contrast, the Greeks, French, I r i s h and Danes on the whole bel ieve t h a t the e f f e c t w i l l be negative.

It should be noted tha t the Greeks, who were the most pos i t i ve 'as regards the e f fec ts o f enlargement on the fu tu re o f the Commynity, are f a i r l y negative as regards the e f fec ts on t h e i r own country.

As the same question had been asked on two occasions, i n autufn 1977 and autumn 1978, i t i s possible t o examine the trend i n repl ies. There i s l i t t l e difference, apart from a s l i g h t decline i n pos i t i ve a t t i tudes i n France, the Netherlands and Germany, which was more marked i n Ireland.

(See Table 25)

See i n t h i s respect the hypothesis put forward above.

o f the rep l ies shows tha t the trend between 1977, and 1985 varied great ly according t o country: i n France and I re land the numbers reply ing "a bad thing" increased sharply; i n the Netherlands, the increase i s i n the number o f "neither good nor bad" repl ies; i n Germany the increase i s div ided equally between negative rep l ies and 'don't knows I.

* Expressed i n summary form by the index values. A deta i led examination

-

- 43 -

8

Table 25

SPANISH ACCESSION: A GOOD OR BAD THING FOR OWN COUNTRY

DK D F IRL I L NL UK GP EC1 X X X X X X X X X X X

. . .. . . .

I

_ .

I I

i

i I I I I I I I I I


October-Novhr.. 1977 A good thlng Helther good nor bad A bad thlng

Don't k m

Total

lndex2

~- October-Novenber ' 19?8 A good thing lklthcr good nor bad A bad thing

Don't know.

Total

2 Index

Uarch-Apr11 1985 A good thing Neither good nor bad A bad thing

Don't know

Total

Index2

I I I I I I I I 1 I I

LOO I100 I100 I100 I100 I100 I100 I100 I100 I100 I100

Weighted average. Including Greece i n 1985. * "A good thing" = 3;"a bad thing" = 1. Don't knows excluded.

- 44 -

111.3.4. Typological analysis o f a t t i tudes t o enlargement

The above presentation o f the rep l ies given i n March-April 1985 t o questions on the accession o f Spain and Portugal has shown the complexity o f the i nte r re l a t i ons h i ps between var i ab1 es.

'

Generally, we f e l t t ha t the a t t i t ude t o the Community i s the most important fac to r i n determining a t t i tudes t o enlargement. However, a respondent's personal a t t i tude i n favour o f Spanish (o r Portuguese) accession i s one th ing and h i s views on what the e f fec ts o f accession w i l l be on the fu tu re o f Spain, the fu tu re o f the enlarged Comnunity and on h i s own country are another. To obtain a c learer picture, a typo- log i ca l analysis has been made c lass i fy ing interviewees i n t o a small number o f groups o r 'types' made up o f persons who gave the most s imi la r replieslto the various questions, as d i s t i n c t as possible from a l l other groups.

A c lass i f i ca t i on i n t o s i x groups was chosen, accounting f o r 69% response variance.

I. The f i r s t group--(which, a f t e r weighting, represents 37% o f interviewees) i s the t o t a l l y c o m i t t e d supporter o f enlargement. respondents gave pos i t i ve rep l ies t o a l l questions. They are also most i n favour*o f European-unification and the European Community.

o f

hese the

The persons concerned tend t o be male and f a i r l y wel l educated, and are overrepresented i n I t a l y and, Luxembourg. and underrepresented i n Denmark. ___. ___I - _----- - ._--- - - ---- . *

. . .- ..

.. - -_ _I -. ..- . . .- ... . . -

II. The second group (14%) i s somewhat less i n favour o f enlargement, but the main character is t ic i s that, while unanimously agreeing tha t j o i n i n g the Comnunity i s a good th ing f o r Spain, these respondents are concerned about the effects, pa r t i cu la r l y f o r the Member States. Members o f t h i s group are f a i r l y wel l disposed t o Europe and the Comnunity. They are concerned supporters.

These are mainly persons w i th an average leve l o f education, overrepresented i n Luxembourg and underrepresented i n Greece. There rema i ns the question o f why they are concerned a t the prospect o f enlargement. It may be assumed t h a t i t js-connected-with t h e i r occupation: t h e i r pro- European feelings, and perhaps a lso some acquaintance w i th Spain and the Spanish, ensure tha t they are not opposed t o enlargement, which i s "a good thing'' f o r Spain,_but "our in terests" have t o be protected above a l l . - - - - - - -

_ _ - - __- -- I- - - I I I . The t h i r d group (10%) i s j u s t as much i n favour o f the p r i nc ip le

o f enlargement, but these respondents are lukewarm supporters. Although the vast ma jor i t y are i n favour o f European uni f icat ion, they are much more uncertain about the European Comnunity. t h a t accession involves d e f i n i t e r i sks f o r Spain i t s e l f , f o r the Comnunity and f o r the Member States.

Consequently, they fee l

.

The rep l ies t o a l l the questions on the entry o f Spain and Portugal- have been taken i n t o account, w i th the exception o f the f i r s t which i s a questiorrof-gure-act aprddöes-no€--sol-ici~-añ opinion.

- 45 - s

This group contains a s l i g h t l y higher proport ion o f women than the population as a whole, but there i s no other d is t inguish ing feature i n i t s composition. countr ies . It i s more o r less equally represented i n a l l

I V . The four th group (8%) are semi- indi f ferent ra ther than opponents o f enlargement. They seem t o have few clear, well- formulated ideas on the subject: some seven i n ten do not rep ly when asked t o give t h e i r personal opinion. They feel , however, t h a t accession w i l l be "a good

I' f o r Spain ( a t l eas t they assume so because Spain has asked t o

t h e i r own country. Thei r rep l i es appear t o be based on a n a t i o n a l i s t i c react ion o r mis t rus t o f change, because they are poorly informed.

, but they are more uncertain about the e f f e c t on the Comnunity and

There are s i g n i f i c a n t l y more women than men i n t h i s group and t h e i r l eve l o f education i s f a i r l y low. - They are s l i g h t l y overrepresented i n Ireland. .

charac ter is t i c o f the members o f t h i s gboup i s t h a t they do not rep ly t o most questions on enlargement, e i t h e r because they have no opinion o r because they refuse t o consider the problem. More than 40% have no opinion on the question o f European un i f i ca t ion , but they do voice t h e i r opposi t ion t o the European Comnunity.

This group contains the most women (67%), the oldest and the leas t educated. less so i n Ireland.

- I .

V. Let us deal b r i e f l y w i t h the f i f t h group (15%). The main

It i s very overrepresented i n Greece and Denmark and somewhat

V I . The l a s t group (16%) i s the unwavering opponent. Admittedly, three-quarters o f them acknowledge o r assume t h a t enlargement w i l l be "a good th ing" f o r Spain, bu t s i x a i d e igh t i n ten respect ive ly f e e l t h a t i t w i l l be 'Ia bad th ing" f o r the Comnunity and f o r t h e i r own country. A substant ial minor i ty, moreover, are opposed t o the Comnunity i t s e l f .

Containing more men than women, t h i s group i s i n some ways the an t i t hes i s of the f i r s t . o f the t o t a l (27%) almost the same as t h a t o f the uncondit ional supporters o f en1 argement (31%).

It i s overrepresented i n France, w i th a share

* * *

I n conclusion, t h i s analysis shows t h a t i n the Comnunity as a whole more than 60% o f interviewees are, t o varying degrees, i n favour of enlargement, 23% are semi- indi f ferent o r i n d i f f e r e n t and only 16% are absolute ly opposed.


- 46 -

i

. . Table 26

iood o r bad th ing f o r orm !!! :ountry iood th ing 1 8 0 I 1 I - - - 1 3 1 2 8 I 3 I 1 1 3 4 \ k l t h e r good nor bad I 17 I 49 I 54 I 39 I 26 I 17 I 29 I

Bad thlng I - I 4 0 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 5 1 8 0 1 2 1 I

I I I I 1 I I I

TYPOLOGY OF ATTITUDES TO THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY

. .

I I I I I I I 1 I I I I

I I II ' III IV V I Concerned I Lukewarm I *&in- 1 Indlff- I Unwavering1 All I supporters I Supporters 1 di f fe rent 1 erent I opponents 1 persons I I I I I I . .a-. .-A

VI 1

I Inter- I I supporters

. . . . .

I I I ACTIVE VARIABLES

Personal a t t j t u d f o r or1 aaainst Spanish ent ry I Strongly for I 51 Sonwhat f o r I 49 Soccwhat against - - 0 - Strongly agajnst 1 - I -

Don't know I .*

I I I I I t % t t t . * I ' ... .

, I I I I ' I I 1 %

I I I I I 1

Personal a t t i t ude fw or I agalnst Portuguese entry J Strongly f o r I 49 I . 27

- -- - -1r--gJq--7y- Somewhat f o r Sonewhat against ! 7 -7-r

I I Good or bad th ing for SpaIn

Nelther good nor bad Good th ing 98 I 100 I - Bad th lng I - I - 1 1 5

Don't know I ' I - 1 2 9 -~

- --"-_ I I

h n u n i t y I I iood o r bad thing f o r t&

bod th lng 95 I 16 I 27 (either good nor bad lad th ing 4 - - - 1---15 - I 6

Don't know - ---I ---- -1 - 10 - I 18

1 i I

Strongly against - I - I

I 21 I '1 - 3 ' I I --70- I

Don't know

I I I I I

I l I I I

1

I I Ï

I I I I I; I I I I

I I i i i i i

4 2 1 2 1 6 1 4 5 1 37 i 26 I 29 I 26 1 2 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 3 1 1 9 1 7 0 1 4 1 1 6 1

- 47 -

Table 26 (Contd.)

TYPOLOGY OF ATTITUDES TO THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY

I I I I I ’ II I I I I V V V I I Tota l ly Concerned I L u k e “ I Semi-ln- I I n d i f f - Unwavering I A l l I conmitted 1 supporters i supporters I dffferent I erent

I (37%) I (14%)

1 opponents I persons I I in ter - I I viewed I (16%)

I supporter: 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I (15%) I I (10%) I (8%)

I t I 2 1 c: I 2 1 % 1 t 1

1 I

I I I I I I

I I

I 1

I I I

I I I

. . I I I I I

DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES

Att i tude t o the European tomnunitr

Strongly f o r (++I I 58 I -43 I 21- I 22 I 8 . , I 22 I 36 I (+I I 24 I 23 I 23 I 28 I 16 I 16 I 22 I (=I I 7 I 11 I 17 I 16 I 31 I 18 I 15 I (-) I 10 I 21 I 36 I 31 I 42 I 39 I 95 1

Strongly against (-1 I 1 I 2 I 3 I 3 I 3 I 5 I 2 I

I

. I I I I I I i uni f ica t ion I ‘I - 1 I I I I I t t t i t u d e t o European I Strongly f o r I 53 I 41 I 2 4 - - . I 23 I 11 I 24 I 35 I Somewhat f o r I 3 9 I 4 6 I 5 2 ” I 47 I 3 3 I 4 4 I 4 2 I Sanewhat against 1 - 3 1 S l l O I 7 1 9 1 1 3 1 7 1

Don‘t know ! 4 1 S I l 0 1 2 0 1 4 3 1 1 2 ~ 1 3 I Strongly against 1 1 . 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 7 1 3 1

sex k n Wornen

* 15-24 25-39 10-54 55 and over

.evel .ow of education I I 4 2 1 3 4 1 4 8 1 4 8 1 6 5 1 4 4 1 4 6 . 1 hferage I 37 I 44 I 40 I 43 I 31 I 42 I 39 I llgh ~ 2 1 ~ 2 2 1 1 2 1 9 1 ( S I l 4 I l S I

ogn i t i ve mobil i za t lon

igh (leader) 1 1 4 I 1 5 1 1 0 1 9 1 5 1 1 3 I l P I

i I

I h o v e average I Below average I Low (non-leader)

I .

- 48 -

Table 27

TYPES: BREAKDOWN BY COUNTRY

I I

I I

I I I I V V V I 1 I II ' h t a l l y ' Concerned Lukewarm Semi-in- Indiff- ' unwavering' A l l I caarnltted I supporters I supporters I dlfferent I

I (37%) I (14%)

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

erent I opponents I persons I inter- I ' v i e d I (10%) I (8%) I (15%) I (16%) I (100%)

I suppa*= I l I I I

I I I 39 I 14

i I Belglm

I Dennark I ' u I 15

' i France 1. Ireland

i Italy I Luxenbourg

I Netherlands I 41 1 17

I Unlted Kingdom 1 29'' 1 ' ' 11

I I I I Greece 1 ? 4 1 7 I I I

10

12

11

8

9

9

9

8

11

12

10

8

7

8

' 13

7

4

11

11

10

10

20

15

27

14

7

17

12

18

12

100%

100%

100%

100%

! 00%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

- 49 -

r

I I I . /'. PLAN FOR EUROPEAN POLITICAL UNION

es::Ll'iish a genuine European p o l i t i c a l en t i t y , i n other words a European union. As we know, an i n i t i a t i v e i n t h i s d i rec t i on was taken by the European Parliament ( a t the i ns t i ga t i on o f A l t i e r o S p i n e l l i ) and was the subject o f a d ra f t Treaty approved by a large major i t y o f t h i s assembly i n February 1984 i n addi t ion t o a repor t drawn up by a Committee o f the personal representatives o f Heads o f State o r Government (Dooge Comi t t ee ) . c

No progress has y e t been made; however, t h i s i n i t i a t i v e w i l l undoubtedly lead t o discussion by European p o l i t i c a l groupings and the pub l ic a t la rge and w i l l o f course encounter resistance from the nat ional bureaucracies.

.- w i l l not discuss the background t o t h i s plan, which seeks t o

Several questions were asked i n March/April 1985 i n an e f f o r t t o c l a r i f y the fo l low ing points:

- are the c-itizens o f our countries aware o f the plan f o r European

- i f - the governments o f t h e Member States disagree regarding the

union, and i f so what i s t h e i r opinion on the question?

object ive o r the means o f obtaining it, should the plan be abandoned o r should i t go forward w i th less support?

form p a r t o f the union f o r i t t o have any meaning?

. I iJ" *

- i f the decision i s t o go ahead, which are the countries tha t must

"The Eutopean P u e n t has pmpobed XhaX lthe memba counOúes 06 the Emopean Co"uci*ty shouÆd WO& t o g e t h a .to bom a Emopean p o W d h n . Eutropean g o u w e n t wouÆd d u t u h hpo/r;tavllt phobLem6 06 common intmest and woued be h e s p o u i b t e .to the Emopean PahRiamevLt. and .id so, me you v m y much 404, a h a $04, oh v m y much a g d i n s t X h i ~ pmjeat 06 a Eutopeun p o U C a e union?"

T U m m lthctt some E n d 06

Have you aetready g o t an opinion on Itkis s u b j e c t against,

"Suppose &o 04 t h e e memba counOúes ob t h e Emopean Communi;ty didaghee ulCth a Eutropeun p o U d union, do you t h i n k th& f i e couv&úes who agme on t h e i d e u shoued go aheud and a u t e tki6 union b-een Ithemhdves utLXk0u.Z f i e a l t h m 04 do you t h i n k the i d e a shoued be chopped?"

"Among lthe membm c o W e s od the E w p e a n Commwúty I h d u d i n g y o u own) wki& od these i~ .to have c o - o p W n g h a p o U c a t union doh Lt .to izave any p o W c a l meaning?" (SHOW LIST OF COUNTRIES) .

absoÆat@ neces4ufr.y

See Eurobarometer No 21, May 1984, p. 14.

- 50 -

Non-leaders

%

11 50

61

(-4

111.4.1. Attitudes t o the plan

(-1 (+I % x

11 7 37 27

48 34

As expected - and the question was drafted t o h i g h l i g h t this p o i n t - a large number of people were indifferent o r had no views: about four i n ten, and over half i n Ireland and the United Kingdom. ' don ' t knows' i s clearly determined by the level of education o f the persons questioned and their degree f f cognitive mobi l iza t ion, i n other words their aptitude fo r leadership. I t also reveals t h a t the mass media and pol i t ical forces have probably n o t made the requisite efforts t o develop - for or against the idea of u n i o n - a t ru ly democratic deba te.

This number of

In examining the results and leaving aside the indifferent or under- informed, the results are not negative. In eight countries i n ten, among those who expressed an opinion, a large majority is favourable (very much o r t o some extent). positive replies slightly outnumber the. negative. very large majority against the p l a n for European union.

The British sample i s less conclusive, bu t the Only i n Denmark is a

(See Table 28)

Ckrtainly, a sample survey i s not a referendum and an information campaign clarifying the implications of forming a European political un ion which would undoubtedly have the effect of reducing the number of abstentions, thus increasing the number of both positive and negative answers. B u t there i s no reason t o believe t h a t the latter would outpace the former. I t i s even probable t h a t i n eight countries out of ten the contrary would happen and Europea! un ion would have the support of a broad majority of the population.

A t this p o i n t the relevance of the second and t h i r d questions becomes apparent: suppose two or three member countries o f the European Community disagree, should the countries who agree go ahead or drop the idea? If the decision i s t o go ahead, which countries must cooperate if political union i s t o have any political meaning?

1 Number of non-answers - indifferent or don ' t knows - i n relation t o leadership r a t i n g (Comnunity as a whole)

Indifferent Don't know

Total

N I 2265 I 3403 I 3084

Leaders (++I

-% 5

18

23

1187

. ~ .... I

See note 1 p. 52.

'- 51 -

8 OK O

X X X X X X X X

Table 28

FOR OR AGAINST A EUROFEAN POLITICAL .'NON

F I R L I L N l

I For - very much I For - to same extent I Agalnst - to'romi cxtknt .

I Against - very ruch I Indlfferent or no oplnion I

Index2 i lota'

I

I 2. O f every 100 wlth an I ovinion 1 for - very auch I for - to some extent I Agalnst - to some extent 1 Agalnst - very much

I Total

I "

17 I 4

5 I 14 34 I 12

2 I 33 42 I - 37.

I i i I I I I 29 1 5 59 I 20 9 I 22 3 I 53

43 1 33 i 26 46 I 49 I 53 9 I 11 I 12 2 1 7 1 9

RE I I

' 9 1 2 6 1 1 6 14 1 20 I 27

1 1 1 6 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 9

55 I 43 I 43

i i I I

20 I 45 i 28 32 I 36 1 48 24 I 8 I 15 24 I 11 I 9

100 I 106 I 100

1 I I

T T

1

T

1 ... I I I

T I I

I I I

I

Weighted average. "For - very much" = 4, "against - very much" = 1; non-answers excluded. I t should be recalled that any figure over 2.5 reflects a positive attitude and any lower figure a .rather negative attitude.

-

- 52 -

Right

x 23 51 18

111.4.2. To go ahead without the others o r drop the idea

Far Not r i g h t c lass i-

f i e d % x

37 29 30 52 12 13

As expected, those i n favour o f p o l i t i c a l union tend t o say tha t i t should be set up by those i n agreement without wai t ing f o r the other

.countries t o make up t h e i r minds, and conversely those who are against the plan would l i k e i t t o be dropped.

For pol í t i c a l Against p o l i t i c a l

Against - very much Total N

uni on union - x

11 9 8 100 100 100. 484 1275 1961

Establ ish a union w i th those who agree 64 19 Drop the plan 26 68 . . . .

No rep ly 10 13 Total -mb mu-

(n=4272) (n=1344) 1 -

Analysis shows t h a t ‘currently, among those who have an opinion, t h e i r views are on the whole r e l a t i v e l y independent o f the degree o f cognit ive mobi l izat ion o r p o l i t i c a l ideology o f the respondent; ( o f course there are differences between the countries; f o r example, i n Denmark - which seem t o be a unique case - a favourable a t t i t u d e t o p o l i t i c a l union- is pos i t i ve l y correlated w i th a r i gh t- or le f t- wing posi t ion).

8 100

1098

At t i tudes t o p o l i t i c a l union i n r e l a t i o n t o leadership r a t i n g (Community as a whole, among those w i th an opinion1

13 6 100 100 ’

358 440

For - very much For - t o some extent Against - t o some extent

At t i tudes t o p o l i t i c a l union i n r e l a t i o n t o p o l i t i c a l ideology (Community as a whole, among those w i th an opinion)

1 Far I L e f t ICentre

I leftl I For - very much For - t o some extent Aclainst - t o some extent

- 53 -

About one quarter o f those i n favour o f p o l i t i c ? : union do not share the major i t y view and pre fer t o dron the idea i n tn? absence o f unanimous agreement, whereas a l i t t l e less th;:; one- f i f t h o f trie opponents o f p o l i t i c a l union would not object t o the others goin9 ahead without them.

The answers should be examined country by country, f o r i t can be assumed t h a t the r e l a t i v e weight o f those f o r and against p o l i t i c a l union i n a given country w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t f ac to r i n the choice t h a t i s l i k e l y t o arise.

I n countries which are the most i n favour o f p o l i t i c a l union (Italy, Belgium, Greece and Luxembourg) about 70% o f those i n favour consider t h a t a union shol;id be set up w i t h those who are i n agreement and without the others. The same i s t rue i n Germany, although i t i s not one o f the countries most i n favour o f union.

I n countr ies less favourable t o p o l i t i c a l union (Ireland, United Kingdom and p a r t i c u l a r l y Denmark) more o r less h a l f o f those i n favour consider that i t would be be t te r t o drop the idea i n the absence o f general agreement.

(See Table 29)

How t o i n t e r p r e t these resu l ts? Two in te rpre ta t ions - not mutually exclusive - are possible: those who are personally i n favour o f p o l i t i c a l union i n a country which they know i s ra ther against i t consider t h a t the idea should be dropped e i t h e r because t h e i r country would no t form p a r t o f the union, o r because they bel ieve t h a t w i th o r without t h e i r own country, a union from which ce r ta in major countries were missing would have no meaning. throw a l i t t l e l i g h t on the question.

General l y speaking, the countries considered most necessary f o r a v iab le p o l i t i c a l union are the Federal Republic o f Germany and France, c lose ly fol lowed by the United Kingdom. countr ies are l i s t e d i s almost exact ly the same regardless o f the respondent's a t t i t u d e t o the question o f union, the only d i f ference being that the most resolute part isans speak up more f requent ly than the others.

Replies t o the t h i r d question regarding p o l i t i c a l union

The order i n which the ten

(See Table 30)

There remains a f i n a l problem t o be examined: what are respondents' views i n each country regarding the pa r t i c i pa t i on of t h e i r own country and o f the others, p a r t i c u l a r l y the three "major" countries, whose p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s considered necessary by the great ma jor i t y o f Europeans interviewed?

. - 5 4 -

632 -

71 22 -7

100

Table 29

EUROPEAN POLITICAL UNION: GO AHEAD OR DROP THE IDEA, BY COUNTRY AND ATTITUDE TO THE PLAN^

73

16 62 22

100

[TALY Set up a union without the others Drop the idea

No rep ly

Total

N

BELGIUM Set up a union without the others Drop the idea

No rep ly

Total -_ - - . - -. ,

I ,

GREECE Set up a union without the others Drop the idea

No rep ly

Total

N

LUXEMBOURG Set up a union without the others Drop the idea

No rep ly

Total

N

FRANCE Set up a union without the others Drop the idea

No rep ly

Total

N

Against M 1 71

20 9

100

32 60 8

100

73 13 14

30 46 24

100 100 I --- I I

460 I 108

66 26 8

19 70 11

100 I 100

62 31 7

29 63 8

- 55 -

.-

42 44 14 '

Table 29 (Contd.)

EUROPEAN POLITICAL UNION: GO AHEAD OR DROP THE IDEA, BY COUNTRY AND ATTITUDE TO THE PLAN^

I 1

19 68 13

I For 1 Against

56 34 10

I RELAND Set up a union without the others Drop the idea

No rep ly

28 57 15

68 21 11

Total

15 69 16

1 100 - I 100

14 43

N

13 75

381 1 . ' . 106 I

36. 52 12

NETHERLANDS Set up a union without the others Drop the idea

No rep l y

16 67 17

100

Total

100

N

GERMANY Set up a union without the others Drop the idea

No rep l y

Total -

N

UNITED KINGDOM Set up a union without the others Drop the idea

No rep l y I 13 I 12

Total I 100 I 100

N I 342 I 317

DENMARK Set up a union without the others Drop the idea

No rep l y

Total

N I 162 I 481

. ....

Countries are l i s t e d i n dec l in ing order o f a t t i t u d e scores i n favour of forming a European P o l i t i c a l Union.

- 56 -

Table 30

COUNTRIES WHICH MUST PARTICIPATE I F EUROPEAN.POLIT1CAL UNION I S TO HAVE A MEANING

1 (Community as a whole)

- . .. . .

1. Germany 2. France 3. United Kingdom 4. I t a l y 5. Nether1 ands 6. Belgium 7. Denmark 8. Luxembourg 9. I re land

10. Greece

Don't know

N

Fo r

Set up a union without the others x

90 87 69 6 1 55 51-- 39 38 29 29

2

2733

Drop the i dea

7

88 85 73 58 53

--5O 43 38 33 35

4

1120

Against

x 75 69 58 38 43 37 32 28 24 19

13

1345

I n d i f - ferent o r don' t know

. .

x 72 69 57 45 40 40 32 31 25 25

16

4731

Total pers ons i n te r- viewed

x 80 76 62 50 46 44 35 33 27 26

10

9929

, - . . :.* Weighted average. The names of the countries are l i s t e d i n decl in ing order o f the number o f answers given by a l l the interviewees. answers - up t o ten - were possible.

Several

-_ - - -

- 57 -

111.4.3. Which countries must par t i c ipa te?

This analysis i s confined t o those who gave pos i t i ve answers t o the two preceding questions, i n other words who were a) i n favour o f p o l i t i c a l union and b) i n favour o f forming a union without the rest. Views on the " ideal" composition o f the union by those i n favour o f dropping the idea o r against the pro jec t al together are o f f a r less in terest .

Le t us f i r s t examine the answers from the three "major" countries, which are a lso those k s t f requent ly mentioned by Europeans i n general: the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

. . . - . - I n Germany, nearly a l l respondents i n favour o f the union and wishing t o go ahead l i s t Germany i n f i r s t place (98%), fol lowed by France (95%), the Netherlands (84%), I t a l y _ _ (77%) and, only i n f i f t h place, the United Kingdom (76%).

- I n France, Germany i s the most f requent ly c i t e d (93%), ahead o f i France i t s e l f (87%), the United Klngdom (67%) and I t a l y (62%).

- I n the United Kingdom, France w i th 89% and Germany w i th 86% are i n the lead, fol lowed by the United Kingdom i t s e l f (67%).

- . - a

From t h i s i t can be seen t h a t the respondent's own country i s not necessari ly placed f i r s t among those which should pa r t i c i pa te i n a union.

We w i l l now go on t o consider the pos i t ion i n countr ies c i t e d frequently, bu t less often than the f i r s t three: I t a l y , the Netherlands and Belgium. - -

- I n I t a l y , Germany i s f i r s t (86%), fol lowed by France (81%) and the United Kingdom (65%); I t a l y i t s e l f i s i n fou r th place with 54%.

- I n the Netherlands, Germany w i th 94% and France w i th 88% are i n the lead, fol lowed by the Netherlands i t s e l f (82%), the United Kingdom (78%), Belgium (66%) and Luxembourg (59%). seventh place a f t e r the two other Benelux countries.

- The p i c tu re i s f a i r l y s im i l a r i n Belgium: France (93%) and Germany (92%) head the l i s t , fol lowed by Bel ium i t s e l f w i th 84%, the Netherlands (77%) and Luxembourg(76% s . The United Kingdom appears i n seventh place (68%), j u s t ahead o f I t a l y w i t h 58%.

I t a l y i s l i s t e d i n

I n t h i s category o f "middling" countries ( t h a t i s , regarded as such by the respondents as a whole) I t a l y i s considered a "major" country, but i n f ou r th place. Another po in t i s t h a t s o l i d a r i t y among the Benelux countr ies would seem t o be a r e a l i t y f o r the three countr ies concerned.

Las t l y we come t o those countr ies l eas t o f ten c i t e d as being necessary f o r a union: Denmark, Luxembourg and Greece.

- 58 -

I h Denmark, where the number o f respondents included i n our analysis is small, Germany. (88%), France (83%) and the United Kingdom (76%) are i n the lead, whi le Denmark i t s e l f i s mentioned as frequent1 as the United Klngdorp but no more (76%), ahead o f the Netherlands (72% 3 and Belgium (68%)

I n Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy i s - cur iously - i n f i r s t place (95%) on an equal foo t ing w i th Germany (also 95%), followed c losely by France (91%). This i s the only case o f a small country where the respondents - almost unanimously - consider tha t a p o l i t i c a l union would be meaningless without t h e i r par t ic ipat ion. E a r l i e r we saw tha t Luxembourg i s one o f the countries most i n favour o f union and i t i s we l l known t h a t Luxembourg could no$ stand aside from a p o l i t i c a l union which included Germany and France.

I re land i s a special case which i s eas i l y explained h i s to r i ca l l y . i s the only country which l i s t s the United Kingdom f i r s t as being necessary f o r a European union (84%), fol lowed by Germany w i th 77% and France w i th 67%. three "major" countries (33%)

Germany (72%) and I t a l y (70%).

It

I re land i t s e l f i f l i s t e d fourth, a long way a f t e r the

I n Greece the l i s t ' r i s as ~fOllOWS: France (79%), Greece i t s e l f (76%),

These resu l ts are presented i n Table 3l'below.

* * *

These countries are l i s t e d i n the same order by nearly a l l interviewees i n Denmark, regardless o f t h e i r opinions on the subject o f union (sample: N = 1021). idea o f union and p a r t i c u l a r l y those i n d i f f e r e n t t o the plan frequently f a i l t o mention the countries which would have t o j o i n i f the union i s t o have any signif icance. I n view o f the s ize o f the Luxembourg sample, the order l i s t e d by the population as a whole i s close t o tha t given by the persons included i n our analysis.

The main di f ference i s t ha t those opposed t o the

\ _ _

I I I I I I I I 1 I

1" I 6z

I 6z

I I 6E

I IS

I I l9

I 6g

I L8

I I

j-z

9

91

z7

E3

os IS

9s

OL

SS

6L

UL

- U9 -

L

E I

ZE

91

92

EE

EE

6E

LO

68

x98

- wn -

I

3E

3E

6s

L3

99

za ss 8L

88

k76

- 1N -

2

Z E

IE S6

8S

E8

E8

so 99

16

166

- 7 -

z

zz SI

81

81

I E

I E

)c

E9

IB

x98

- I -

E

6

oc E

L I

71

I I

ft

90

L9

U L

- 111 -

-

6E

E9

LS

89

I L

78

LL

9L

E6

t86

- a -

L

LE

8E

OE

91

89

ZL

89

9L

E8

c;88

- Ml 7

i LE I 8E I 9L I

I " I LL I 8s I

I €6-1

lCt6 I I

-I a

N

auon

(peaqe 06 p p o q s $1 6 u p w ) ~ a q pue uoiun j o m o h e j uk suosad j o AdJuno3 Kq sJansuW)

T9NINV3W W 3AWH O1 NOINn 1W3IlI7.3d NW3dOUl3 t lOj NIOr lSnW H3IHM S3IlllNn03

I€ a l w l

- 65 -

- 60 -

I n concluding t h i s exploratory survey o f the a t t i tudes o f European populations t o the plan for European p o l i t i c a l union, i t i s c lear t ha t opinion i s s t i l l i l l- informed: 35% o f non-answers i n the Netherlands (minimum) and 55% i n the United Kingdom (maximum) (see Table No. 28).

O f those who expressed an opinion, the major i ty i n each country, excluding Denmark, were i n favour. more dubious: 52% "for" and-48% "against" (see Table No. 28).

Two-thirds i n 'favour o f union consider tha t i n the case o f disagreement between the governments o f the Member States the countries who are i n agreement should go ahead. i n Ireland, the United Kingdom and s t i l l more i n Denmark, even among those i m favour o f European union, a major i t y bel ieve t h a t the idea should be dropped i n case o f disagreement (see Table 29).

Lastly, i n the Comnunity as a whole, the preva i l ing opinion i s t ha t Germany (80%), France (76%) , Uni ted. K i ngdom (62%) and I t a l y (50%) must belong t o the union i f i t i s t o have any meaning. These proportions are evident ly much higher amid part isans o f union who bel ieve tha t i t should go ahead (see Table 30).

the United Kingdom would be determinant.

I

The United Kingdom would seem t o be

It should, however, be noted t h a t

From these analyses, therefore, i t would appear that the decision o f

_ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ ----. - - - I

CHAPTER I V

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

I V . ._ . .. . .

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

By comparison w i t h 1979,l the second e lect ions t o the European Parliament, i n June 1984, showed a s l i g h t drop i n turnout i n f ou r out o f s i x Member States where vo t ing i s not compulsory. t h a t the European Parliament as an i n s t i t u t i o n i s having some d i f f i c u l t y i n f i n d i n g i t s place i n pub l ic opinion. The react ion i t provokes i s no t so much one o f h o s t i l i t y as one o f ind i f ference and ignorance. The image i t has i s ra ther vague and, one might say, in te rmi t ten t ; information about Parliament i s extremely sketchy and the main th ing people seem t o know about i t i s t h a t i t has l i t t l e power.

The Directorate-General f o r Information and Pub1 i c Relations o f the European' Parlidment has therefore decided t o monitor trends i n opinions and a t t i t udes ï n EUrop@'Òn a regular basis between e lect ions - especia l ly among c i t i zens o f vo t ing age -(this has never been done hi therto).

The present Eurobarometer contains c i ve gue_s€ipns r e l a t i n g t o the pub l ic ' s awareness o f the European Parliament, i t s image3 i t s r o l e and the r o l e people woitld l i k e t o see-it p lay i n the-future.

Research has shown

-

IV.1. .AWARENESS OF THE INSTITUTION AND THE PUBLIC'S OVERALL VIEW -

The f i r s t o f the questions was put f o r the ten th t ime and the second f o r the t h i r d time.

-

See Eurobarometer - No 22, December 1984, pp. 60-95. * See J.-R. Rabier: "OD sont donc l es citoyens de l'Europe?" ("Where are the c i t i zens o f Europe?"), repor t presented t o the Working Grau3 on the 1984 European Elections, European Consortium fo r P o l i t i c a l Fkx3rch, Barcel ona, March 1985. A question of methodological i n t e r e s t was also put i n order t o measure the extent t o which people who were e n t i t l e d t o vote i n June 1984 remembered - o r d i d not remember - whether they had .ac tua l l y voted o r abs t a ined .

- 63 -

--- Awareness o f the European Parliament: 1977 - 79 I-- t o 1982 - 85

IV.1.1. Awareness o f the I n s t i t u t i o n

As i s c lear from Graph No 2 and Table 32, awareness o f the European Parliament i s in termi t tent : i t increases a t e lec t ion time and declines soon a f te r . The extent and speed o f t h i s phenomenon i s hard t o assess due t o a lack o f data f o r 1980 - 1981.

55% 60 61 60 52 58 61

55 57

. 56 _ _

--

(See Graph No 2 and Table 32)

Looking a t the data overa l l , i t would appear tha t t h i s t rend i s on the increase i n a l l countries. The leve l reached i n March - Apr i l 1984, j u s t before the second e lec t ion (an average o f 75%) was generally higher than t h a t f o r A p r i l 1979 (65%). during the period immediately fol lowing the elect ions i n 1984 was impressive: -19% i n one year.

It would therefore be hazardous t o make a prognosis regarding fu tu re trends. A l l one can do a t t h i s stage i s t o present the resu l ts o f the ten surveys and calculate the average f o r 1977 - 79 ( four surveys) on the one hand, and f o r 1982 - 85 ( s i x surveys) on the other. The resu l ts show t h a t o f the nine countries f o r which t h i s comparison can be made, pub l ic awareness o f the European Parliament has s l i g h t l y increased i n three o f them (Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands), s l i g h t l y decreased i n three others (Luxembourg, France and Denmark) andsemained v i r t u a l l y unchanged

On the other hand the decline observed

i n Ireland, I t a l y and the United - . . Kingdom. - -

+11% + 8% + 7% - - - - - - - 7% - 9% -13% - -

Belgium Germany Nether1 ands I t a l y Un i ted K i ngdom I re1 and Luxembourg France I

Denmark Comnün i ty -

--

the other -- 50% 55 57 61 53 59

62 62 57

.. ._ 66

This perception o f the European Parliament i n the general f low o f information d a i l y transmitted by the media i s obviously correlated t o educational l eve l and even more t o the cognit ive mobi l izat ion (o r leadership ra t ing) o f the respondents. cogni t ive non-att i tudinal variable, the r e l a t i o n i t bears t o a t t i tudes w i th regard t o the Comnunity i s weak but posi t ive.

Since we are dealing here w i th a

The comparison d o e . n o t apply t o Greece; the average f o r 1982 - 85 fo r t h i s count?y--is 52%. Calculated-un thezbasis o f o r i g ina l data rounded t o one place of decimals.

-

- 64 -

Graph 2

AWARENESS OF THE TYROPEAN PARLI " E l * :

(1977-19851

Have recently read or heard anything.

- 65 -

Table 32 .. _- . .

AWARENESS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Parliament on radio o r televis ionu1 - * 'Respondents who have recent ly "seen o r heard something aboút the European

I" i April-hy 1977 I October-November 1978 I April 1979 I ELECTIONS

1979

1902 1::: I Ilarch-Adril 1983 I October 1983 I Uarch-April 1984

ELECTIONS - -

October-November 1984 1985

I I Uarch-Apr11

I 46% --I 49' I 65

i 66

I ~ OK D F I R 1 I L NL

I

' UK GR EC2 . .. .

5 5 1 : I 6 6 1

54 1 53 1 61 1

.- _ _ _-_- - I-- ' The f igures i n bold type- give-the maxjmum percentage reached i n each country f o r the ten p o l l s concerned, as wel l as the percentage immediately below i t where the di f ference between the two does n o t exceed f i v e points.

Average weighted i n l i n e w i th the population o f each country. Greece as o f 1982.

Includes ~ - _

.- I . . _ . ._. . . . . -

It i s worth nothing t h a t among respondents o f vot ing age registered on the e lec tora l r o l l s who were a lso e n t i t l e d t o vote i n 1984, awareness o f the European Parliament was somewhat higher among )hose who claimed t o have voted i n 1984 than among those who abstained.

(See Table 33)

IV.1.2. Overall view o f the I n s t i t u t i o n

Among those who had recent ly read o r heard something about the European Parliament, i.e. j u s t over 6 out o f 10 people, approximately one- third had a "general l y favourable" impression, one- third a "general l y unfavourable" impression and another t h i r d "nei ther favourable nor unfavourable" o r no impression a t a l l .

The favourable impression predominates i n I t a l y , Greece and France, and a lso - but only j u s t - i n I re land and Belgium. countries, p a r t i c u l a r l y Denmark and the United - Kingdom, the unfavourable impress i on predomi na tes.

1983), a considerable degree o f s t a b i l i t y may be observed, w i th a moderately pos i t i ve trend i n Belgium, France, Ireland and I t a l y , and a c l e a r l y negative t rend i n Denmark.

I n a l l other

Compared t o previous six-month periods (October 1982 and March-April

(See Table 34)

These answers are c lose ly re la ted t o a t t i t udes t o the Community. However, among those who look u on membership o f the Comnunity as a good thing, more than a quarter (26% P have a ra ther bad impression o f the European Parliament.

Although, s t r i c t l y speaking, i t i s impossible t o know the exact sense i n which causa l i t y operates i n t h i s case, one may assume t h a t the respondents' overa l l view - i n t h i s case t h e i r assessment o f their- country's membership o f the Community - preva i ls over and determines t h e i r impression o f what they have read o r heard on the subject o f the European Parl iament.

(See Table 35)

This percentage o f negative impressions o f the European Parl iament among those who are i n favour o f the Comnunity i s an excel lent ind ica tor f o r assessing, country by country, the reputat ion o f t h i s I n s t i t u t i o n among the most committed and "European" segment o f the qeneral public.

I n s i x countries, favourable impressions outweigh unfavourable impressions, but t h i s does not apply t o the other four. c a l l the poor image o f the European Parliamsnt i s p a r t i c u l a r l y pronounced i n Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

What one might

This p a r t o f the e lectorate should be observed p a r t i c u l a r l y closely, country by country, u n t i l the next European elect ions. Caution i n i n te rp re t i ng the country-by-country var ia t ions i s i n order here, since these resu l t s are based on sub-samples; nevertheless, the general t rend t o which they p o i n t remains val id, subject t o subsequent confirmation.

- 67 -

6 DK D F

67% 71% 64% 70%

(878) (486) (559) (685)

68 50 45 68

(50) (388) (317) (204)

-

AWARENESS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AMONG THE ELECTORATE I N EACH COUNTRY DEPENDING ON WHETHER RESPONDENTS

VOTED OR ABSTAINED I N 1984l

IRL I L NL UK GR EC'

61% 70% 81% 66% 63% 56% 67%

(650: (966) (234) (516) (676) (821) 6371

47 52 65 62 50 42 52

(182: (54) (23: (289) (591) (93) 2355

(Respondents who have recent ly read i n the press o r heard on radio o r te lev is ion something about the European Par1 lament1

Claim t o have voted i n 1984

(N I

Claim t o have abstai ned

(NI

Answers were selected according t o age (18 o r over), whether respondents are registered on e lectora l l i s t s o r vot ing registers, and whether they had reached vot ing age i n 1984.

* Weighted average.

Table 34

IMPRESSION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON THE BASIS OF THINGS READ OR HEARD

B OK

- 68 -

D F IR1 I L Il UK 6R EC' X X X X t t t X X X X

JRespondents who have read or heard something)

October 1982 General ly favourable knera 1 ly unf avourable Melther favourable nor unfavourable 2

Don't knar

Total

N

larch-kri1 1983 M e r a l ly favourable Senemlly unfavourable kither favourable nor unfavourable2

Don't know

Total

N

larch-Apr1 1 1985 knera l l y favourable Gcneral l y unfavourable kither favourable nor Unfavourable 2

Don't &now

Total

N

Weighted average. Spontaneous reaction for respondents.

- 69 -

A bad th ing

% 9

19

66 6

100

Table 35

IMPRESSION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACCORDING TO THINGS READ OR HEARD I N RELATION TO RESPONDENTS' ASSESSMENT OF THEIR COUNTRY'S

MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMUNITY

JRespondents who have read o r heard somethinq) (Community as a whole ) 1

Don I t know. .

x 16

39

20 25

100

General ly favourable Neither favourabte nor unfavourable General l y unfavour- ab1 e

Don't know

A good th ing

x 40

29

26 5

100

3938

-- Total

Neither good nor bad

x 17 ,

37

4 1 5

100

1244 N

B OK

x x

h e r a l 1 assessment European Comuni ty

O F I R 1 I 1 I L UK GR EC' x x x x x x , x x x

204

o f membership o f thf

344 516 338 599 206

679 1 206

~~~ -

TOTAL

7 31

30

33 6

100

5067

Table 36

QUALITY OF THE -- EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT'S IMAGE: THE IMPRESSION LEFT BY THINGS READ OR HEARD

AMONG THOSE WHO CONSIDER MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMUNITY A GOOD THING3

- 70 -

.- IV.2. THE IMPORTANCE OF. THE CURRENT ROLE L?F THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND P R E k E E N C E S REGARDING ITS FUTURE E'z,.E -

. . , .

IV.2.1. Parliament's role today

The first of these two questions has been p u t a number of times since the s p r i n g of 1977.

The results give rise t o the following coments:

1. Between the spr ing of 1977 and the s p r i n g of 1983 there was a downward trend i n "don't knows" i n moSt countries; t h i s applies to an even greater extent t o the period between early 1984 and the autumn of that year. T h i s i s probably the resul t of the two European elections and the mass of information disseminated a t that time. A reverse trend, however, may be noted between the autumn of 1984 and the spr ing of 1985. Here again we see the phenomenon of inter- mittence mentioned earl ier;

2. The f a l l i n the number of "don't knows", which was quite substantial between 1977 and 1985, has not led t o an increase i n the number of more comitted answers, i.e. those who t h i n k the European Parliament should play a "very important" role. The vast majority of respondents i n f ac t opt for one of the intermediate replies ("important" or "not very important"; consequently, fo r the Comuni ty as a whole, the answers given i n March-April 1985 closely resemble those for Apri l 1983: an average of four out of ten people questioned t h i n k that the European Parliament plays an "important" role (but no more) and approximately three p u t of ten t h i n k i t plays a %ot very important" role ( b u t no less).

These results vary s l ight ly according t o country, a l though the differences are not very marked: rather more positive answers i n Ireland, I t a ly and - from now on - France; rather fewer positive answers i n the Netherlands and i n Germany.

(See Table 37)

Answers t o a similar question relating t o the role of the national parliament show that this inst i tut ion is seenias much more important: "very important" i n 33% of cases, and "important" i n 43% (April 1983).

. . _ . - '

- 71 -

8 OK O F IR1 I 1 WL UK x x x x x x x x x

Table 37

6R Ec1 x x

IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT I N THE LIFE OF THE m UNIT

40 41 25 25 18 25 14 13 18

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

2.46 2.40 2.07 2.36 2.80 2 . 0 2.71 2 . a 2.73

I I Aprl1-Ua.y 1977 I very irportant I Inportant I Not very laportant I Not Ilportant a t a l l I Don't knar

I Total

I Index2

I

j :;;Ertant I Inportant I Not vety imortant I #ot ilportant a t a l l I Don't knar

I T o a l

1 tndcr2

I I I Isportant I Not vety ilportant I Nt ilportant a t a l l I Don'tknow

I Total

I October-Novcmber 1984 1 very important I Important I Not very inportant I Not important a t a l l I Don't know

1 Total

I Indexe

I Index*

I :;h;:A:? I Ilportant I Not very Important I kt irportant a t a l l I Don't know

I Total

I Index2

: 24

: 100

: 2.49

25 35 12 22 18 17 12

100 100 100 100 100 100 100

2.69 2.85 2.42 2.77 3.03 2.87 2.81 -

13 16 29 17

100 100 100 100

2.57 2.73 2.96 2.69

. . - - y

Weighted average.

.d i f ferent response codes. Don't knows have been excluded from the calculation. The central point therefore corresponds t o 2.5.

* Calculated by applying respectively coeff ic ients 4, 3 , 2 and 1 t o the

18 35 19 22 19 23 16 12 15 20

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

2.59 2.58 2.42 2.61 2.78 2.65 2.74 2.48 2.52 2.67

19

100

2.55

8 19 5 12 8 8 5 9 8

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

2.48 2.64 2.36 2.59 2.75 2.81 2.69 2.39 2.63

16 9

100 100

2.86 2.58

14 30 12 13 12 14 12 11 13 25

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

2.62 2.63 2.45 2.77 2.90 2-80 2.74 2.53 2.75 2.72

14 I 100

2.67 -

- 72 -

IV.2.2. Future r o l e

With regard t o the r o l e people would l i k e 30 see Parliament take i n future the same s t a b i l i t y i s observed. f a i r l y close t o those o f autumn 1983 and spr ing 1984. r e l a t i v e l y more I t a l i ans , French and Greeks who would l i k e t o see Parliament's r o l e strengthened. This corresponds t o the opinion o f the major i t y o f respondents i n a l l countries, w i th the exception o f Denmark.

The March-April 1985 resu l ts are There are

(See Table 38)

* * *

There 75 a cor re la t ion among a l l these answers r e l a t i n g t o the European Par1 iament and between them and the answers concerning European union arìd the Comnunity.

The closest cor re la t ion ex i s t s between answers on the r o l e people would l i k e t o see Parliament play, t h e i r assessment o f membership o f !he European Comnunity and a t t i t udes regarding plans f o r p o l i t i c a l union.

Given t h a t the turnout f o r the e lect ions i n 1984 was la rge l y determined - i n those countr ies which do have a compulsory vot ing - by the perceived importance o f the r o l e o f the European Parliament, i t i s c lea r t h a t the best way o f increasing t h i s turnout i n the future, i f no major changes take place, i s by improving the q u a l i t y o f Parliament's image and g i v ing a more substant ial content t o i t s powers and author i ty.

-- The co r re la t i on coe f f i c i en ts f o r a l l respondents are as fol lows: - r o l e preferred w i t h a t t i t u d e t o European union r = .342 - r o l e preferred w i th assessment o f membership o f

the European Comuni ty r = .364 - r o l e preferred w i th a t t i t u d e t o plans f o r p o l i t i c a l union r = .438

* See J.-R. Rabier, op. c i t . pp 40-46.

- 73 -

-

8 OK O F I R L I L NL UK 6R EC1 x x x x x x x x x I

Table 38

THE ROLE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO PLAY

,- 1 % x

Weighted average.

Due to a technical error the results for Italy were collected a l i t t l e later than in other countries (November 1984) and refer to the population aged 18 and over.

* Spontaneous response.

I 30 38 23 26 29 18 11 14 19 33 22 I Don*tk& .

I Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 I

I Don't know I 22 29 21 21 24 15 13 16 15 21 18

I Total - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 I I

I Don't know I 16 40 26 24 27 23 14 15 19

I Total . 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ,

21 23

100 100 I

I I Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

8 14 14 1 Don't know I 11 30 15 17 20 10

I

20 I 14

I Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1DO

I Don't know I 16 39 20 , 4 21 L7 12 17 19 25 16

EURO-BAROMETRE No 23 EURO-BAROMETRE Nr. 23

ANNEXES ET TABLEAUX DETAILLES-/ APPENDIX AND DETAILED TABLES

. . .

. . ..

. ....

A l

INSTITUTS CHARGES DU SONDA= ET SPECIALISTES RESPONSABLES /

INSTITUTES WHICH CARRIED OUT THE SURVEY AND EXPERTS IN CHARGE

._. .. Belgique/België

Danmark

Deutschland

Ellas

France

Ireland

Italia

Luxembourg

Nederland

DIMARSO N.V. rue des Colonies, 54 B-ïó00 Bruxelles Tél.: 02/219.24.08

Leo VEREYCKEN Nicole JAMAR

GALLUP MARKEDSANALYSE A/S Rolf RANDRUP Gammel Vartov Vej 6

Tél.: 01/29.88.00

EMNID-INSTITUT GmbH Walter TACKE Bodelschwinghstraße, 23-25a Klaus Peter SCHOEPPNER D-4800 Bielefeld 1 Tél. i 05217210158

. . DK-2900 Hellerup . . -

ICAP HELLAS S.A. Vas. Sophias, 64 GR-Athinai 615 Tél.: 01/7225.651

Anthony LYKIARDOPOULOS Tilemachos DIB

INSTITUT DE SONDAGES Albert LAVIALLE LAVI ALLE 6-8 rue du 4 Septembre F-92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux Tél.: 554.64.11

IRISH MARKETING SURVEYS Ltd John F. MEAGHER 19-20 Upper Pembroke Street IRL-Dublin 2 Tél.: 76.11.96

Charles COYLE

ISTITUTO PER LE RICERCHE STA- TISTICHE E L'ANALISI DELL'O- PINIONE PUBBLICA (DOXA) Ennio SALAMON Galleria San Carlo, 6 Alfonso del RE 1-20122 Milano Tél.: 02/790.871

INSTITUT LUXEMBOURGEOIS DE RE- CHERCHES SOCIALES ( ILRES) Louis MEVIS 6 , rue du Marché-aux-Herbes GD-Luxembourg Tél.: 0352/475021

NEDERLANDS INSTITUUT VOOR DE PUBLIEKE OPINIE (NIPO,) B.V. Arnold WEIJTLANDT Barentzplein, 7 NL-1013 NJ Amsterdam Tél.: 020/24.88.44

United Kingdom ( x x ) SOCIAL SURVEYS (GALLUP POLL) Norman WEBB 202 Finchley Road Robert WYBROW

Tél.: 01/794.0461 UK-LONDON NW3 6BL

A 2

Coordination internationale / Hélène RIFFAULT International co-ordination FAITS et OPINIONS

25, rue Cambon F-75001 Paris Tél.: 01/296.41.65

I I

Toutes les données relatives aux Euro- Baromètres sont déposées aux "Belgian Archives for the Social Sciences'*, (1 Place Montesquieu, B-1348 Louvain-la- Neuve). Elles sont tenues à la dispo- sition des organismes membres du Euro- pean Consortium for Political Research (Essex), du Inter-University Consor- tium for Political and Social Research, (Michigan) et des chercheurs justi- fiant d'un intérêt de recherche.

All Euro-Barometre data are stored at the Belgian Archives for the Social Sciences (1, Place Montesquieu, B- 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve). They are at the disposal of all institutes members of the European Consortium for Political Research (Essex), of the Inter-University Consortium for Poli- tical and Social Research (Michigan) and of all those intemted in social science research.

~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~

Pour tous renseignements sur les étu- For all information regarding opinion des d'opinion publique faites à llini- surveys carried out for the Commis- tiative de la Commission des Communau- sion of the European Communities, tés européennes, écrire J.-R. RABIER please write to J.-R. RABIER, special Conseiller spécial, 200,rue de la Loi, Counsellor, 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 B-1049 Bruxelles. Brussels.

(x) Les dix instituts actuellement chargés de ces sondages ont formé entre eux THE EUROPEAN OMNIBUS SURVEY, dont le comité de direction comprend: Robert GIJS (DIMARSO, Bruxelles), Jan STAPEL (NIPO, Amsterdam) et Nor- man WEBB (Social Surveys, London). / The ten institutes which carried out these surveys have formed amongst themselves THE EUROPEAN OMNIBUS SURVEY of which the Management Committee comprises: Robert GIJS (DIMARSO, Brussels), Jan STAPEL (NIPO, Amsterdam) and Norman WEBB (Social Surveys, London).

(XX) Le sondage en Northern Ireland est fait en collaboration par le Irish Marketing Surveys et le Social Surveys (Gallup Poll). / The Northern Ireland Survey is conducted jointly by Irish Marketing Surveys and the Social Surveys (Gallup Poll).

ECHANTILLONNAGE / SAMPLING

L'objectif'de la méthode d'échantillon- The sample has been designed to be nage est de couvrir de façon représen- representative of the total popula- tative la totalité de la population tim aged 15 years and over of the des dix pays de la Communauté âgee de ten countries of the Community. 15 ans et plus. In each country a two stage sampling L'échantillon de chaque pays est cons- method is used: titué B deux niveaux:

lo Régions et localités d'enquête

Les statistiques de la Communauté euro- For statistical purposes the European péenne divisent l'espace européen en Community divides Europe into 117 117 r6gions (voir liste ci-jointe). regions (see attached list). The L'enquête a lieu dans 115 régions (Cor- survey takes place in 115 of these se et Val d'Aoste exceptés). regions {Corsica and Val D'aoste

Chaque pays a constitué aléatoirement

lo Geographical distribution

excluded).

In each country a random selection of sampling points is made in such a way that all types of area (urban, rural, etc.) are represented in proportion to their populations.

un kcha&illon-maltre de localités d'enquête de telle sorte que toutes les catégories d'habitat soient repré- sentées proportionnellement à leurs populations respectives.

Au total, les interviews de l'enquête The interviews are distributed in Omnibus Européenne ont lieu dans en- viron 1 150 points d'enquête. more or less 1 150 sampling points.

2 O Choix des personnes interrogées 2 O Choice of respondents

Les personnes interrogées sont toujours différentes d'une enquête à l'autre. L'échantillon-maltre aléatoire Qvoqué ci-dessus indique le nombre de personnes à interroger à chaque point d'en- quête. Au stade suivant, les personnes à interroger sont désignées: - soit par un tirage au sort sur liste dans les pays oÙ on peut avoir accès à des listes exhaustives d'individus ou de foyers: Belgique, Pays-Bas, Danemark, Luxembourg;

For each survey different individuals are 'interviewed in the master sample of sampling point described above. Within these sampling poi nts the individuals to be interviewed are chosen : - either at random from the population or electoral lists in those countries where access to suitable lists of individuals or households is possible: Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg:

- soit par échantillonnage stratifié - or by quota sampling. In these sur la base des statistiques de re- cases the quotas are established censement, l'échantillon étant con- by sex, age and occupation on the struit à partir des critères de se- basis of census data: this system xel âge et profession: France, Ita- is used in France, Italy, United- lie, Royaume-Uni, Irlande, Allemagne; Kingdom, Ireland and Germany;

- soit par une méthode combinant les - or by a method combining the two deux précédentes (cheminement systé- precedent ones ("random route"): matique): Grèce. Greece.

A 4

REGIONS D'ENQUETES / GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

BELGIQUE/BELGIE

2 "i : Antwerpen k . V. : West-Vlaanderen O.V. : Oost-Vlaanderen BR : Brabant LI : Limburg LIE : Liège HAI : Hainaut NA : Namur LX : Luxembourg

BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND

S.H. : Schleswig-Holstein STA : Stade AUR : Aurich OLD : Oldenburg B : Bremen LUN : Lüneburg BR : Braunschweig OSN : Osnabrück HAN MUN DET HIL DUS ARN KAS AA KOL TRI

Hannover Münster Detmold Hildesheim Düsseldorf Arns berg Kassel Aachen Köln Tri er

LOR AL B.N. BRE P. LOI CEN BOU F.C. P.CH. LIM AUV

AQU M.P. LAN P. CDA COR

R-A

: Lorraine OV : Overijssel : Alsace NH : Noord- : Basse-Normandie Holland : Bretagne GEL : Gelderland : Pays de la Loire ZH : Zuid- : Centre Hol 1 and : Bourgogne UT : Utrecht : Franche-Comté ZE : Zeeland : Poitou-Charentes N.B. : Noord- : Limousin Brabant : Auvergne LI : Limburg : Rhône-Alpes : Aquitaine UNITED KINGDOM : Midi-Pyrénées : Languedoc : Provence-Côte d'Azur : -(corsë-) . -

SCOTL : Scotland N. : North

: Northern Ireland

IRELAND

~ _ _ _ _ - - N.W. : North West Y.H. : Yorkshire

DON : Donegal N.W. : North West N.E. : North East W. : West M. : Midlands E. : East MLW. : Mid West S.E. : South East S.W. : South West

and Humbersi de

WALES : Wales W.M. : West

E.M. : East

E.A. : East Anglia S.U. : South West S.E. : South East

Midlands

Midlands

KOB : Koblenz ITALIA E U A S DA.WI.: Darmstadt-Wiesbaden V.D.A.:(Valle d'Aosta) -

U.F. : Unterfranken O.F. : Oberfranken SAA : Saarland RH.PF.: Rheinhessen-Pfalz N.B. : Nordbaden N.W. : Nordwürttemberg M.F. : Mittelfranken O.PF. : Oberpfalz N.BAY.: Niederbayern S.B. : Siidbaden S.W. : Südwiirttemberg SCH : Schwaben 0.BAY.: Oberbayern BER : Berlin

DANMARK

JYLL : Jylland .

SJAE : Sjaelland FYN : Fyn

FRANCE

NORD : Nord PIC : Picardie H. N. : Haute-Normandie R.P. : Région Parisienne CHA : Champagne

PIE : Piemonte Kentriki Ellas kai LOM : Lombardia Evia T.AA : Trentino-Alto Adige Pelopbnnissos W N : Veneto Ibnioi Nissoi F.VG : Friuli-Venezia-GiuliaIpiros LIG : Liguria Thessalia .

E-R : Emilia-Romagna Makedoni a TOS : Toscana Thr&ki UMB : Umbria Nissoi Aigaiou MAR : Marche Kriti LA2 : Lazio ABR : Abruzzi MOL : Molise CAM : Campania PUG : Puglia BAS : Basilicata CAL : Calabria SIC : Sicilia SAR : Sardegna

. ~ ....

LUXEMBOURG

LX : G.D. du Luxembourg

NEDERLAND

GR : Groningen FR : Friesland DR : Drenthe

1

I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I

A 5

POPULATION E T U D I E , TAILLE DES ECHANTILLONS, DATES DU TRAVAIL / SURVEYED POPULATION, SIZE OF THE SAMPLE, DATES OF FIELDWOM

I I I I Population (1) Echantillons / Dates I

(Baro 23) I I Samples (2) I . I milliers/ I % 1 (Baro 23) I

I I I I Ithousands I - .

I I I I I B DK D GR F IRL I L NL UK

I 7 918

I 51 246 I 7 590 I 42 348 I 2 428

I 45 299 172 I 11 275

I 4 112

I 44 975

3.64 i 1 016 1.89 I 1 030 23.58 I 1 007

19.48 I 1 018

20.78 I 1 127 0.14 I 300 5;19 I ' 985

3.49 I 1 O00

1.12 I 1 O09

20.69 I 1 453

I 14-30/111/1985 I 23-31/111

I 25/111-3/IV I 28/1II-l9/IV I 28/1II-l2/IV I 26/III-lO/IV

I 23/1II-l3/IV I 25/1II-l2/IV

I 22/111-11/1v

I ,9-22/ Iv

I I i CE/EC I 217 363 loo. O0 9 945 14/111-22/IV I

I1 est rappelé que les résultats obte- Readers are reminded that sample nus par sondage sont des estimations survey results are estimations, the dont le degré de certitude et de pré- degree of certainty and precision of cision dépend, toutes choses égales which; everything being kept equal, d'ailleurs, du nombre des individus rests upon the number of cases. With constituant l'échantillon. Avec des samples of about 1 000, it is general- échantillons de l'ordre de 1 000, on ly admitted that a percentage diffe- admet généralement qu'une différence rence of less than five per cent is inférieure B cinq pour cent entre deux below the acceptable level of confi- pourcentages est au-dessous du niveau dence. acceptable de confiance. - -

* * *

Les annexes statistiques -qui permet- The statistical appendix which enable tent de comparer, pour chaque pays et one to compare the results of the most pour l'ensemble de la Communauté, les recent Euro-Barometre with the pre--.. résultats du plus récent Euro-Baromè- vious ones, per country and for the tre et ceux des - - précédents- _- - __ - -. - - - . ont . été Community as a whole, have been put composées sur machine 5 traitement de together on a word-processing machine texte ET 351, suivant les conseils ET 351, according to the technical techniques et avec la coopération advice and with the kind assistance

-

gracieuse de la société of OLIVETTI S.A. Belge. OLIVETTI S.A. Belge.

(1) 15 ans et plus / 15 years and over. (2) Nombre d'interviews / Number of interviews.

A 6

100 1 O0 1 O0 100

988 1006 1013 1008

T A B L E A U 1 / T A B L E 1

100

983

LE SENTIMENT GLOBAL DE'SATISFACTION DE LA V I E / T H E FEELING OF O V E R A L L LIFE SATISFACTION -

I. 100 1 O0 100 100 100 100 100

I 1009 949 1210 1020 1038 995 1018

Dan; i Ensemble, êtes-vous t r è s s a t i s f a i t , plutôt pas s a t i s f a i t ou pas s a t i s f a i t d u t o u t de l a vie que-vous menez.? / On the u h o l e , are you very sa t i s f i ed , f a i r l y s a t i s f i e d , n o t very s a t i s f i e d , or n o t a t a l l s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e l i f e you lead ?

100 100

1035 1016

I I I ' I I I I ITrès s a t i s f a i t / ]Very s a t i s f i e d I Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / IFairly s a t i s f i e d lp lu tSt pas s a t i s f a i t / I N C - very s a t i s f i e d I P : s a t i s f a i t d u t o u t / I N P . a t a l l s a t i s f i e d I Sans réponse/No reply

I Total

I N

BELGIQUE / B E L G I E i I I I l l I I I 1 I I

1973 IX X

43

49

6

2

- 100

1266

-

1975 i 1975 v-VI I x-XI

% I x I

I - - -

I 5 1 8

I 2 1 4

39 I 36

52 I 51

1976 i 1976 v-VI I XI % i X

I

- 1

I I

36 I 40

52 I 51

8 1 - 7

3 1 2 *

1977 i 1977 i 1978 i 1978 i 1979 . i . . . . . c IV-v i x-XI i v-VI i x-XI i IV I

% I X I % I % I X C

I I l i i BELGIQUE / BELGIE I

Très s a t i s f a i t / Very s a t i s f i e d Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / Fairly s a t i s f i e d Plutôt pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very s a t i s f i e d Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d Sans réponsc/No reply

Total

N

I I I I I I I I l I I I I 1980 I 1981 I 1982 I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 I 1985 I I I IV I IV I III-IV I x I III-IV I x I III-IV I x-XI I I I I - I V I I 1 x 1 X I X I X I % I X I X I % I % I t v I I i I l I I l I I I

I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 53 I 49 I 51 I 60 I 60 I 60 I 46 I 63 I 58 I I I 35 I 36 I 29 I 20 I 23 I 18 I 30 I 16 I 26 I

. ...

. .

A 7

TABLEAU 1 ( su i t e ) / TABLE 1 (continued)

. . '. . . .

I

I * I 4

I 100 100

1199 1073

i DANMARK

9 1 ' I 1 1 1 1 - 100 100 I00 100 100

1023 977 962 1010 992

TrZs s a t i s f a i t / Very sa t i s f i ed . Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / Fairly sa t i s f i ed P l u t a t pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very sa t i s f i ed Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / Not a t a l l s a t i s f i ed Sans rCponse/No reply

Total

N

7 1006 1211 995

i 1973 i 1975 i 1975 i 1976 I 1976 \ 1977 I 1977 I XI I IV-v I x-XI 1 % 1 % I %

I I , I I I I I 50 I 54 I 53

1978 v-VI

% -

54

40

5

1

1 O0

983

I n 1978 I 1979

-+E-t I I I I I I

3 1 4 1 I I

58 I 51 I

38 I 43 I

I I I I I I I I Tr8s s a t i s f a i t / I Very sa t i s f i ed I Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / )Fai r ly sa t i s f i ed l ~ l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t / I Not very sa t i s f i ed (Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / lNot a t a l l s a t i s f i ed I Sans réponselNo reply I

ìiota1

I I 1- I 1980 I IV I X I I 55

i 1 4 i I 1

~ 1981 I 1982 I 1982

I I 59 I 57 I 57

i i 36 i 37 1 39

I I

D A N M A R K ' 1983 I 1983 I 1984

II\-IV 1 ; i 11;-IV

I I I I

54 I 55 I 56

41 1 40 i 37 I I

4 1 4 1 4 i i

I I . I . 1 I 1 1 2

I

l - l - t 1984 I 1985 I I

I I I 58 I 63 I I

I I I 37 i 32 i I

3 1 3 1 1 I I

I I I . i ' l i i ZEI 990 1022

A 8

TABLEAU 1 ( s u i t e ) / T A B L E 1 (cont inued)

Tota l I 100 100 100 1m 100 100 100 I 1957 1039 1002 1004 1007 y7996 N

DEUTSCHLAND

100 100 100 - 1006 1003’

1 O0

I 1053

Très, s a t i s f a i t / Very s a t i s f i e d P l u t a t s a t i s f a i t / F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d PIutGt pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very s a t i s f i e d Pas s a t i s f a i t d u t o u t / Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d Sans réponse/No reply

Tota l

N 100

1007

DEUTSCHLAND i

I I I I I I I I I 1980 i 1981 i 1982 IV I IV I III-IV X I X I %

I I I I

17 I 16 I 20

68 I 61 I 63

11 I 16 I 12 I I i i

2 1 3 1 2 2 1 4 1 3 *

I982 i 1983

I I I I

+ 19 I 18

65 I , 63

12 I 15

2 1 3

1983 i 1984 x I III-IV X I x

I

I

I I

12 I 20

66 I 63

15 I 12

2 1 2 *

1984 i 1985 i x-XI i III-IV i % I % I

I I

I I 13 I 24 I

71 I 60 I 13 I 14 I

I I I I

2 1 2 1

i I

T I I I I

A 9

100

1000

TABLEAU 1 ( s u i t e ) I TABLE 1 (continued)

100 100

1000 1000

I i I ELLAS I

1000 1199 1000

Très s a t i s f a i t / - - Very s a t i s f i e d Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / Fairly s a t i s f i e d Plutôt pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very s a t i s f i e d Pas s a t i s f a i t 4; t b u t / Not at a l l s a t i s f i e d Sans rkponse/No reply

Total

N 1000 1000

5 1981 i 1982 i 1982 i 1983 I 1983 IV I III-IV I x 1 III-IV I x Ù I % I % I r i %

- - ---- I--- I I I 19 I 18 I 17 I 17 I 18

i i i i 39 I 46 I 39 I 46 I 45

1 I I I I I I I

20 I 22 I 29 I 20 I 24

22 I 13 I 14 I 17 I 12 . I I I 1 1 . I 1

I I 1984 1 1984 1 1985 \ I I

I % I III-IV I x - X I I III-IV I I X I % I X I % I

I I I I I I

19 I 15 I 19 I 46 I 48 48 1

- . .

. . ... . - . - - - . . - .I . .

. -_ . . .- . . . . .

A 10

TABLEAU 1 ( s u i t e ) / TABLE 1 (continued)

Tris s a t i s f a i t / Very s a t i s f i e d P l u t a t s a t i s f a i t / Fai r ly s a t i s f i e d Plutôt pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very s a t i s f i e d Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d Sans r6ponse/No reply

I Total

1' FRANCE I

1973 IX % -

15

62

17

5 1

100

2227

- - -

I I I 1975 I 1975

+-E- l

I I I

16 I 15

59 1 59

, 16 I 18

I 1976 I 1976

+-I-+ I

I

I I

14 I 10

59 I 59

20 I 22

6 1 8

I 1977 I 1977

+-t+ I I

I I I

11 I 13

57 I 60

1 23 I 19

8 1 7

I I I I x-XI I I v-VI I IV I

1 x 1 % I a ; [ I I I I I 12 I 11 I 10 I I I I I I 59 I 59 I 58 I I I I I

I l I I I 9 1 s l 9 1

I 1978 I 1978 I 1979 I

I 19 I 23 I 22 I

1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ' .l.".'' ' l i 1 1

100 - 100 - 100 100 100 I 100 100 I 1241 1356 1256 1149 1276 1194 1152

I I I I I I I I Tr8s s a t i s f a i t / IVery s a t i s f i e d I P l u t a t s a t i s f a i t / IFairly s a t i s f i e d JP iu ta t pas s a t i s f a i t / (No t very s a t i s f i e d lPas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / lNot a t a l l s a t i s f i e d I Sans rCponse/No reply I I Total

I N

FRANCE I I -

1980 IV % -

10

60

22

8 -

100

993 -

I 1981 ] 1982 *

I

t - I I

12 I 16

58 I 63

22 I 16

1 1982 I 1983

-+i+ I I

I I

13 I 11

60 I 63

20 I 18

1011

I I I I I

1983 i 1984 i 1984 i 1985 i i x I III-IV I x-XI I III-IV I I X I X I X I % I x 1 '

I I I I I 15 I 12 I 11 I 13 I I

I I I I I 60 I 60 I 62 I 63 I I

I I I I I 18 I 20 I 21 I 18 I I

I I I I I 6 1 7 1 5 1 5 1 I

A 11

TABLEAU 1 ( su i t e ) / T A B L E 1 (continued)

ISans rbponse/No reply I . 1 1

I 100 100 100

1008 1005 1181

i I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l

. I 1 . I 1 * I 1 1 I> 100 100 100 100 100 100

1007 987 1002 1000 1008 1009 -

I IRELAND I

i I I I I I I I I l l I IX I v-VI I x-XI I v-VI I XI I IV-v I x-XI I v-VI

- - -- . I % I % I % I % I % I % I % I %

Tris s a t i s f a i t ï - I I I I I I I I Very sa t i s f i ed Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / Fairly sa t i s f i ed P l u t t i t pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very sa t i s f i ed Pas s a t i s f a i t du tout/ Not a t a l l s a t i s f i ed Sans r&ponse/No reply

Total

N

I 53 I 36 I 40 I 34

I - 39 I 52 I 50 I 54 I I - I I

37 I 38 I 42 I 40 I I I

50 I 50 I 47 I '50 I I I

9 1 8 1 6 1 7 I I I

4 1 4 1 5 1

1978 I 1979 x-XI I IV % I %

I I

45 I 47 I

I

41 I 37

8 1 11

5 1 5 *

ITris s a t i s f a i t / IVery sa t i s f i ed I Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / [Fai r ly s a t i s f i e d 1Plutôt pas s a t i s f a i t / lNot very sa t i s f i ed I Pas s a t i s f a i t du tout / ]Not a t a l l s a t i s f i ed

I 1 .. ,. . IRELAND

i 1

IV I IV 1 III-IV I x I III-IV I x I III-IV I x-XI I III-IV I % I X I % I- % . I.-- % I % I % I % I % I %

I I I l I I I I I I 34 I 34 I 40 I 33 1 35 I 27 I 36 I 30 I 31 I I

I I I I I I I I I I 52 I 49 I 46 I 53 I 47 I 53 I 47 I 55 I 50 I I


I I I I I I I I I I 3 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 5 1 8 1 s l 4 1 6 1 I

_. __ 1980 b 9 8 1 I 1982 I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 I 1985 I

i 1

IV I IV 1 III-IV I x I III-IV I x I III-IV I x-XI I III-IV I % I X I % I- % . I.-- % I % I % I % I % I %

I I I l I I I I I I 34 I 34 I 40 I 33 1 35 I 27 I 36 I 30 I 31 I I



I I I I I I I I I I 3 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 5 1 8 1 s l 4 1 6 1 I

_. __ 1980 b 9 8 1 I 1982 I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 I 1985 I

A 12

1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 * . I *

100 - 100 .. - 100 100 100 100 100 100

1909 1043 1110 923 1052 1025 1155 1175

T A B L E A U 1 ( s u i t e ) / TABLE 1 (cont inued)

- I, 100 100

1030 1178

Tras s a t i s f a i t / Very s a t i s f i e d P l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t / F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d P l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very s a t i s f i e d Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / Sans réponselNo reply

Tota l

u

_. -_

I I I ]Très s a t i s f a i t / IVery s a t i s f i e d .

I P l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t / I F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d J P l u t ô t pa-s s a t i s f a i t / )Not very s a t i s f i e d ( P a s s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / I Sans rCponse/No reply

I Total

ITALIA. I

1973 i 1975 i 1975 i 1976 i 1976 i 1977 i 1977 ' i 1978 i 1978 i 1979 I 1 % I % I % I % I % I % I % I % I % I % I

i i 8 1 7 1

I I I I

7 1 1 0 1

57 I 52 I 27 I 28 I

i i 9 1 7 1

I I 48 I 48 I

I I 30 I 31 I 12 I 13 I

i i 9 1 9 1

I I

I I 48 I 50 I 29 I 31 I 13 I 10 I

i I

I

8 I , 10

54 I 53

11 I 11 27 I 26

i I 9 1 9 1

I I

I I

12 I 11 I

54 1 50 I 25 I 30 I

- 1980 IV % -

10

54

27 9

- 1 O0

1116

- -

- ..

ITALIA

I t I I 1981 i 1982 i 1982 i 1983 i 1983 IV I III-IV I x I III-IV I x % I % I % I % I %

I I

I

13 I 14

54 I 57

9 1 7 24 I 22

I I I ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 I I

I I 50 I 56 I 57

28 I 24 I 25 11 I 9 I 10

1 O0

I 1984 I 1984 *

I I I

10 I 12

54 I 57

10 I 7 26 I 23

d-d

I 7

1985 I I III- IV I I

% I % 1 ' I I

15 I I I I

52 I I I I

23 I I 9 1 I

A 13

T A B L E A U 1 ( su i t e ) / T A B L E 1 (continued)

I 1 1 - ,

1 100 100

300 300 I

i I 1 7

i I

1 1 I l _ _ 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 * I I~ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

399 300 300 304 300 299 300

i i 1973 i 1975

Très s a t i s f a i t / ,Very sa t i s f i ed Plutôt s a t i s f a i t /

IFairly sa t i s f i ed /p lu tô t pas s a t i s f a i t / /No t very sa t i s f i ed IPas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / / N o t a t a l l s a t i s f i ed

i IX j v-VI 1 x 1 % I I I I I 49 I 45 I I I 9 1 15 I 1 I 2 1 7

I 30 I 26

1975 x-XI

- %

39

49

9

2 I Sans réponselNo reply 7 ) ' 1

I Total

LUXEMBOURG

I I v-VI I XI I IV-v % I % \ %

I I

I I

I I I I

1976 I 1976 I 1977

30 I 31 I 39

58 I 57 I 51

7 1 7 1 9

1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 -

1977 x-XI

%

38

51

9

1

100

344

I I m

1978 I 1978 I 1979 I v-VI I x-XI 1 IV I % I % I % I .

I 40 I

I 50 I

I 9 1

I I I

I 34 I

I 49 I

I 13 I

I 2 1

I 33 I

I 60 I

I 5 1

I I I i 2 1 l i

299

\

Tras s a t i s f a i t / Very sa t i s f i ed Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / Fairly sa t i s f i ed Plutôt pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very sa t i s f i ed Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / Not a t a l l s a t i s f i ed Sans rCponse/No reply

I Total

I LUXEMBOURG I

i ; I v i IV i IIITIV i x i III-IV i x i III-IV i x-XI i III-IV i I 1 x 1 % I % I % I % I % I % I % I % I % i i i I I I 57 I 54

I 35 I 40 i i i i

38 I 32 I 39 I I I I I I

51 I 59 I 53 I I

A 14

i i NEDER inl . - i !

TABLEAU 1 ( s u i t e ) / TABLE 1 (cont inued)

Tras s a t i s f a i t / Very s a t i s f i e d P l u t a t s a t i s f a i t / F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d P l u t a t pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very sat,is.fied.. . Pas s a t i s f a i t d u ' to&/ Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d Sans réponselNo rep ly

Total

n

I I 1980 i 1981 i 1982 i 1982 i 1983

Sans réponse/No rep ly I . Total

N 999

I I I I I I 1973 I 1975 I 1975 I 1976 I 1976 I IX I v-VI I x-XI I v-VI I X I b l % I % I % I x

. I 1 1 1 100 100 100 100

1091 1228 1056 998

41

52

.5

I 33 I 34

I

I / 52 I 52

7 1 6

I I

I I

I I I 9 1 7

I 41 I 38

I 48 I . 52

i i i i i I 1 1 2 1 2 1 I I 2 I 1 1 s l 6 1 1 1

I 1977 I 1977 IV-v I x-XI

% I x I

38 I 44 I

54 I 48 I

6 1 5 I

I 1978 I 1978 v-VI I x-XI

X I 0

I

I I I

46 I 44

47 I 48

6 1 5

1 1 2

1131 913

1979 IV % -

46

49

1

100

974 -

I 1-

I NEDERLAND I

i I V i IV i III-IV i x i III-IV I X I X I X I % I %

I I I I I I I 1 .1983 I 1984 I 1984 I 1985 I

X I III-IV I X-XI 1 1 1 1 - 1 4 I I X I X I X I X I % i

1 I

I I

38 I 44

51 I 48

7 1 6

3 1 1

I I I I i 47 I 40 I I

I I I 45 I 50 I I

I l I 5 1 6 1 I

I I I 1 1 2 1 I

A 15

. . 1 I I I

T A B L E A U 1 [ s u i t e ) / T A B L E 1 (continued)

I I

, _-

I I r

100

1426

I I GREAT B R I T A I N (1973) and U N I T E 0 K I N G D O M - I

100 100

1339 1317

Total . I 100 -

N 1454

I I X I v - V I I x - X I I v - V I I X I 1 I V - v I x - X I 1 % 1 % I % I % I % \ %. . I %

I I -- -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I 33 I 33 I 29 I 28 I 28 I 29 I 30

I 52 I 53 I 53 I 54 I 56 I 53 I 57

100 100

1369 1419 ___ ... ..- - -

I 11.1 9 I 12 I I I I 3 1 3 1 5

1335 1348 1277 1355

Tr3s s a t i s f a i t / Very s a t i s f i e d P l u t i i t s a t i s f a i t / Fairly s a t i s f i e d Plutôt pas s a t i s f a i t /

,Not very s a t i s f i e d - '

Pas s a t i s f a i t du tout/ Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d Sans rhponse/No reply I 1 I 2 I 1 I 1 I . I 1 I

tota al

1405 1443

12

5

12 I 12 I 10

4 1 5 1 3 I I

I 100 I -100 I 100 I 100 I . 100 I 100 I 100 I

N I 1933 I 1328 1 1438 1 1340 I 1351 I 1414 I 1351

_ _ ~ _ _ _ . . - -

I - 1978 i 1978 i 1979 i Y - V I i x - X I i I V i

% I % I % ( I I I

34 I 32 I 27 I i i i

52 I 55 I 59 I l I I

1 1 I 8 ' 'lï \ I I ' I

3 1 4 1 3 1

I - .

I I GREAT B R I T A I N (1973) and U N I T E D K I N G D O M I I

1982 X

. ...% .

35

51

10

3

I I I I I I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 I 1985 I l

I I I - I V I x I I I I - I V I x - X I I I I I - I V I I % I % I % I % I % I % I

I I I I I I I I

29 I 29 I 32

58 I 54 I 53

10 I 11 1 10

I l l 30 1 33 I I

I I I

3 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 I

I I I I I I I

i I I ITrès s a t i s f a i t / (Very s a t i s f i e d I P l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t / (Fairly s a t i s f i e d I P l u t ô t pas . s a t i s f a i t / lNot very s a t i s f i e d lPas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / )Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d I Sans r6ponse/No reply

100

9327

A 16


100 100

8788 8976

COMMUNAUTE/COMMUNITY ( i )

1 1982 I 1982 I 1983

1973 I X %

21

58

16

4 1

1 O0

13484

-

- - -

l i i 24 I 22 I 20

I I I 1975 I 1975 1 1976 I 1976 v-VI i x-XI i v-VI i X I

% I %

i i i 57 1 56 I 55 I . 55

I

I 16 I 17

5 1 6

I

I 18 I 18

6 1 6 2 1 2 1 I I 1 loo-l 100 1 100 1 - roó

9550 9150 8627 9210

1

IV-v I x-XI % I %

I 20 j 22

I 55 I 57

I I

1977 I 1977

18 I 15

6 1 5

I I 1978 I 1978 I ,1975 v-VI I x-XI I IV

X I % I % I

I

I

22 I 22

55 I 57

16 I 15 i

6 1 5

21

56

17

5

. I COWIUNAUTE/CORWUNITY ( i ) i

I .. . i I

l

l l

I i

I 1980 I 1981 I IV i I V I % l x

Très s a t i s f a i t / i i Very s a t i s f i e d I 21 1 21 P l u t a t s a t i s f a i t / I I F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d - 1 57 I 55

Pas s a t i s f a i t d u t o u t / I I f ; 6 I 17

P l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very s a t i s f i e d

Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d I 5 I 6 Sans r&ponse/No reply I 1 I Tota l

)I

III-IV I x I III-IV % I X I x

1

11676 9790

1983 I 1984 + I I

I I

18 I 21

58 I 56

16 I 16

6 1 6

1984 I 1985 I I x-XI I XIX-IV I I

% I % I X i I I

i i I I I

60 1 56 I I

I I

I I

19 I 23 I

l I

' I

16 I 1F '

4 1 5 1

( 1 ) Y compris l a Grèce B p a r t i r d ' a v r i l 1981. / Including Greece from Apr.il 1981.

A 17

I 15

100

1077

TABLEAU 2 / TABLE 2

13 I 21 I 13

100 100 100

988 1006 1013

LE SENTIMENT DE SATISFACTION QUANT AU FONCTIONNEMENT DE LA DEMOCRATIE

THE FEELING OF SATISFACTION W I T H THE WAY DEMOCRACY WORKS

T o t a l I 100

Dans l 'ensemble , êtes- vous t r è s s a t i s f a i t , p l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t , p l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t ou pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t du fonct ionnement de l a démocrat ie (dans v o t r e pays) ? / On t h e whole, a r e you very s a t i s f i e d , f a i r l y s a t i s f i e d , n o t v e r y s a t i s f i e d , o r n o t a t a l l s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e way democracy works ( i n your c o u n t r y ) ?

,100 100 100

Très s a t i s f a i t / Very s a t i s f i e d P l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t / F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d P l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t / Not v e r y s a t i s f i e d Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / - Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d Sans rLponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

N 1 1210 1020 1038

I BELGIQUE / BELGIE

995

i I-

I I X I T I I 13 I I 49 I I 23 I ' .-

1 9

I 1973

1- 6

1 1266

I 100 -

100

1018

100 100

1035 1016

I I 1978 I 1979 I 1979 x - X I I I V I X

% I % I % i i

4 1 4 1 . 8 I I

38 i 39 i 39 I I

I I . 24 I 29 I 25

13 I 14 I 12

, 1008 1 983 1 1032

1980 x - X I

%

4

30

32

19 15

1 O0

1022

- 1981 x - X I

% -

7

28

31

18 16

100

973

- - -

I r I I BELGIQUE / BELGIE I I

i I I I I i 1982 i 1982 i 1983 i 1983 IIII- IV^ x I III-IV I x I X I % I % I %

Très s a t i s f a i t / i i i Very s a t i s f i e d I 7 1 4 1 4 P l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t / I I I P l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t / 1 I c __.

Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / I I I

F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d I 33 I 40 I , 39

Not ve ry s a t i s f i e d I 32 I 29 I 27

Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d I 17 I 14 I 17

i I 5 I I 48 I - . -. .

I 27 i I 11

I I I I 1984 I 1984 I 1985 I

I I - I I I I 17 I 15 I 14 I I 1 I

A 18

I I

i l I 1973 I 1976 I 1977 I 1977 I 1978 I 1978

I I I I I

.. .

Sans rbponse/No reply I 2 I 2 . I . -

Totak 1- 1 0 0 7 100 I


8 1 3 5 5 __ - - 100 100 100 100

I I

I I I DANMARK I

I I

I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1982 I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 I 1985 I I IIII-IV! x I III-IV I x I III-IV I x-XI I III-IV I

~

0 1 X I X I X I X I % I X I X I % Tres s a t i s f a i t / I I I I I I I I I Very s a t i s f i e d I 11 I 12 I 16 I 21 I 20 I 20 I 19 I I Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / I I I I I I I I I Fair ly s a t i s f i e d I 50 I 45 I 54 I 50 I 48 I 50 I 49 I I Plutôt pas s a t i s f a i t / I I I I I I I I I Not very s a t i s f i e d I 27 I 29 I 20 I 19 I 21 I 19 I 21 I I Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / I I I I I I I I I Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d I 8 I 8 I 4 I 3 I 6 I 5 I 7 I I Sans réponselNo reply I 4 I 6 6 1 7 1 5 6 4

1

Total I 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

N 1211 995 1027 1000 996 990 1030

N I 1199.1 962 I 1010 I 992 I 983 I 1002 I I I I I I .. - . -. _- - _ -

I I I I 1979 I 1979 I 1980 I 1981 I IV I X I x-XI I x-XI I X I a i X I % I

I I I I

I I I I 9 1 1 7 1 1 3 1 1 7 1

53 i 54 i 47 i 50 i

24 I 18 I 27 I 22 I I I I I

I I I I 8 1 6 1 8 1 7 1

~ .

I

I

I I 1 I I I I

--t Tt

4

A 19

16 I 15 I 13 I I

' 3 1 2 1 2

TABLEAU 2 ( s u i t e ) TABLE 2 (cont inued)

1 4

I 100

1328

I

I , ~ .. 7 1 7 10 7 1 1 1 3 ) I I

100 100 100 100 100 100

1012 1049 1058 992 1053 . 1007

I I I I I I ITrhs s a t i s f a i t / (Very s a t i s f i e d I P l u t a t s a t i s f a i t / ] F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d l p l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t / l N o t very s a t i s f i e d lPas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / I Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d I Sans rhponse/No r e p l y

I T o t a l

DEUT SCH LAND I

1973 i. 1976 IX I X I % I %

I I I I

5 I 13

39 I 66

44 I 16

1977 IV-v

%

1 1

67

16

2 4

1 O0

1005 -

1977 x-XI

%

9.

69

16

2 4

1 O0

999

1978 i 1978 I 1979 v-VI I x-XI I I V % I % I %

I I I I

9 1 9 1 10

67 I 68 I 70 I I

5 1 6 1 5

1979 I 1980 I 1981 I x I x-XI I x-XI I % I % I % i

I I I 1 2 ) 9 ) 1 1 1

I I I 68 i 64 i 59 1

I I - I 12 i 17 i 18 i

" ' ' I I I 2 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 6 1 7 1

100 I 100 I t 1005 1008

I I I I

Tres s a t i s f a i t / Very s a t i s f i e d P l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t / F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d P l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very s a t i s f i e d Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / N o t a t a l l s a t i s f i e d Sans réponselNo r e p l y

I T o t a l

I N

DEUTSCHLAND I I

I I '

I I IIII- IV^ x

I I 121 -8 I I I 56 I 59 I I I 21 I 22 I I I 7 1 4

I 1982 I 1982

1 % I ' %

1983 III-IV

x

12

59

18

4

I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I

1983 X % -

7

59

21

3

I 1 I 1

I I I I I I I I

I 1 1984 ] 1984

++I+- I I I I

12 I 11

59 I 62

19 I 21

3 1 5

1985 III-IV

%

13

60

19

5

I I I 1

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I '

I % I

I % I

I % I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 l I I I I I I


1 2

I 100

1000

.-.

7 1 8 1 8 1 7 1 8 1 6 1 s l e l [ ,

- l o o 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 - ~ . _

1000 1199 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

_- '. . .

I I I- i I ELLAS l l... _. .. . . . I i I I I Tris s a t i s f a i t / (Very sa t i s f i ed I Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / IFairly s a t i s f i e d )Plutôt pas s a t i s f a i t I Not very sa t i s f i ed (Pas s a t i s f a i t du tout/ 1Not at a l l s a t i s f i e d I Sans r€ponse/No reply

A 21

100 100

1256 1149

T A B L E A U 2 ( s u i t e ) / TABLE 2 (continued)

/

100 100 100

1276 1194 1152

i I I I ITrbs s a t i s f a i t / IVery sa t i s f i ed I Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / IFairly sa t i s f i ed IPlutôt pas s a t i s f a i t / INot very sa t i s f i ed (Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / l N o t a t a l l s a t i s f i ed I Sans réponselNo reply

I Total

I 141 9 1 101 1 1 1 8

I 100 -100. 100 100 100 I 1199 939 1011 1000 1008 I

F R A N C E

10 I 8 I I I, 100 100

1006 1017

~~ 1- I I I I I 1973 I 1976 I 1977 I 1977 I 1978 I 1978 I 1979

1 1 4 1 . 9 1 101 1 1 1 8

I 100 -100. 100 100 100 I 1199 939 1011 1000 1008 I

IX I XI % I %

I I I I

4 1 4

37 I 38

30 I 31

16 I 15 13 I I2

YJ--G

10 I 8 I I I, 100 100

1006 1017

I m 1979 I 1980 I 1981 I

x 1 x-XI I x-XI I % I % l % l

I I I 3 1 3 1 5 1

I I I I I I I I I

38 I 33 I 48 I 32 I 34 I 27 I 151 181 7 1 12 I 12 I 13 I

1006

I I I F R A N C E I

I I I I I I 1982 I 1982 I I I I - I V ! x 1 x 1 %

Tr3s s a t i s f a i t / Very sa t i s f i ed Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / Fairly sa t i s f i ed Plutôt pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very sa t i s f i ed Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / Not a t a l l s a t i s f i ed Sans r6ponse/No reply

I i I 2 1 5 I I I I I I

I 42 I 40

I 30 I 32

I 12 I 14

I I .I I I I I I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 I 1985 I I I I

I i X I % I

III-IV i x i III-IV i x-XI i III-IV i i % I % I % I X I % I % I

i i i I l I I

i i i i 3 1 7 1 4 1 4 1 5 1

i 33 I

I 37 I

I 17 I

i i i I I I I

I I I

39 I 36 I 34 I 30 I 34 I 38 I 13 I 18 I 14 I

i 39 I

I 35 I

I 13 I

1 Total

I N

. . . .

. . . . L -.: .

A 22


, 1977 i 1978 x-XI I v-VI

% I % I

I

I I

12 I 13

57 I 58

16 I 15

6 1 7

l r è s s a t i s f a i t / lery s a t i s f i e d ' l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t / : a i r l y s a t i s f i e d ' l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t / lot very s a t i s f i e d 'as s a t i s f a i t d u t o u t / lot a t a l l s a t i s f i e d ians réponselNo reply

' o t a l

I

100 I 100 I 100

1007 987 1002

i T R E L A N O I

100 I 100 100 I I lQO0 1008 1009

1 1973 IX % -

9

46

27

16 2

100

1199

- - - . _ .

1 1976 i 1977 XI I IV-v % I %

I 7 I 10

I

I

I

52 I 52

25 I 23

10 I 10

- . -* - ------- - .

1978 i 1979

+-i+- I

I.

I I

10 I 5

51 I 42

18 I 30 * 1005 - -

1979 i 1980 + I

I I

I

11 I 7

46 I 41

22 I 30

15 1 16 * -

1981 x-XI

% -

13

46

22

9 10

1 O0

985

- -

I I I I l I I lT rès s a t i s f a i t / I Very s a t i s f i e d I P l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t / ) F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d ] P l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i ' / I Not very s a t i s f i e d lPas s a t i s f a i t d u t o u t / /Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d I Sans réponse/No reply

iiota1

I R E L A N D i

I I I I I I I I I 1982 i 1982 i 1983 i 1983 i 1984 i 1984 i 1985 i

III- IV^ x I III-IV I x I III-IV I x-XI I III-IV I % I X I % I X I % I X I X I Ix;

I I I I I I I

i 44

22

11

i 39 I

I 30 I

I 19 I

i 37 I

I 29 I

I

i 43 I

I 27 I

I

i 38 I

I 30 I

I 20 I

i 41 I

I 28 I

I 17 I

100

1181

- -

A 23

100

-1025


100 100 100

1031 1033 1060

I I

- I i I I I I Tras s a t i s f a i t / !Very sa t i s f i ed I Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / (Fai r ly s a t i s f i e d I Plutôt pas. s a t i s f a i t / I Not very' s a t i s f i ed )Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / 1Not a t a l l s a t i s f i ed ISans rbponse/No reply

I Total

ITALIA

I I I I I 1973 i ,1976

I

I 2 1 1

25 I 13

42

30 1

100

1909 -

43

40

i 1977 i 1977 i 1978 I 1;-v .I x;1 i V Z I

I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 47 I 45 I ' 44 I I I I 39 I 33 I 28

I 11 I 18 I 24

I 1978 I x-XI r i I 1 I I 18 I I 46 I I 32 2

1052 1025 1155 1175 1030

1979 i 1979 I 1980 I 1981 I IV I x I x-XI I x-XI I

I 2 1

I 14 I

I 46 I

I 36 I

I 2 1

I 19 I

I 41 I

I 36 I

' 3

18

45

32

, 1178 I 1170 I 1108

4 1 I

I ' - 1 . '

43 I I

16 I _. .

1070

I I I I I I I ITALIA I

I I Tras s a t i s f a i t / )Very s a t i s f i e d I Plutôt s a t i s f a i t / I F a i r ly sa t i s f i ed ]Plutôt pas s a t i s f a i t / !Not very sa t i s f i ed lPas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / lNot a t a l l s a t i s f i ed I Sans rCponse/No reply

I Total

I I

1982 III-IV

%

2

19

44

31 4

100

1301

- -

1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 x I III-IV I x I III-IV

I I I I I I I I

3 1 2 1 1

16 I 15 I 19

38 I 46 I 46

39 1 34 I 31

1

19

45

31 4 ) 3 1 4

1984 I 1985 I I I I x-XI I III-IV I I

% I % I % I I I I I I

3 1 2 1 I - I I I I I I I

I x . I %

25 I 23 I I I I I I I I I

45 I 45 I I I I I I I I I

26 I 27 I I I I 11 1097 1127

A 24

100

322

TABLEAU 2 : - v i t e ) / TABLE 2 (continued)

- 100 100 100 100 100

291 299 298 300 500

* -..- .

I 2

I 100

399

I l I I I I I I I I I I 1

I

5 9 8 7 3 6

100 100 100 100 100 100

300 300 304 300 299 300

T r b s a t i s f a i t / Very s a t i s f i e d P l u t a t s a t i s f a i t /

IFairly s a t i s f i e d l p l u t a t pas s a t i s f a i t / INot very s a t i s f i e d Pas s a t i s f a i t du tout/ Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d San5 -6ponse/No reply

TG*,

N

I I I I I I 1973 I 1976 i IX i XI 1 % 1 % i i I I

I I I 28 I 21 I I I 9 1 8

I 16 I 13

I 36 I 41

1 IV-v I x - X I

% I % I I I I

1977 I 1977

15 I 24

56 I 44

22 I 20

2 1 4

35

LUXEMBOURG I

I I I I 1978 1 1978 v-VI I x - X I

% I % I

I I I

24 I 15

43 I 48

24 I 29

2 1 3

1979 1 1979 I 1980 1 1981 I . IV I x I x - X I I x - X I I % I % I % I % 1 '

I I I I 17 i 23

44 I 50

29 I 23

I I

I

18 i 16 i I I

59 I 59 I I I I I

17 I .18 I

I I LUXEMBOURG I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ITr is s a t i s f a i t / IVery s a t i s f i e d I P lu tô t s a t i s f a i t / (Fa i r ly s a t i s f i e d ) P l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t ; ) N o t very c & i s f i e d I Pas s a t i s i ..: t d u tout / lNot a t a l l s a t i s f i e d I Sans dponse/No reply

I Total

i 1982' i 1982 i 1983 I 1983 i 1984 i 1984 i 1985 i iIII-IVi x i III-IV i x i III-IV i x- X I i III-IV i I X I % I X I % I % I % I % I x i i i i i i i i I 14 I 12 I 13 I 11 I 11 I 11 I 15 I I I I I I I I I I 49 I 47 I - 49 I 49 I 53 I 57 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 26 I 28 I 23 I 22 I 20 I 24

57 I I

20 I I

- - I I

I lTrbs s a t i s f a i t / IVery s a t i s f i e d I P l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t / ! F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d ( P l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t / I Not very s a t i s f i e d IPas s a t i s f a i t du tou t / ]Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d I Sans r&ponse/No reply

100

1123

I Total

I N

100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1033 943 1131 913 974 1092 1114

I

5 1 3 1 - - 4 5

100 100 100 100

1228 1056 998 1050

I ' I

I I I I I I I I 3 3 6

100 100 100

1015 1018 985

Tras s a t i s f a i t / Very s a t i s f i e d P l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t / F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d

, P l u t ô t pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very s a t i s f i e d

/ P a s s a t i s f a i t d u t o u t / INot a t a l l s a t i s f i e d Sans réponse/No reply

I Total

A '25


- 1973

I X x -

8

44

28

10 10

100

1464

- - -

NEDERLAND ,

1976 X I x

12

55

26

6

I I

I I I I l I I I

I I 1977 1 1977 I 1978 1;-v I X Z I i y1

I I 1 0 1 9 1 8

i 57 I

I 24 I

I 5 1

61

22

5

1978 x - X I

x

9

44

35

8

I I 1979 I 1979 I 1980

x - x i

9 1 7 1 9

+--I++- I I i i

55 I 54 I 42 .I I

25 I 27 I 34

6 1 7 1 11 I I

1 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 S I 5 1 4

. -

I I

I :g: 1 I

6 1 1

53 I I

27 I I

1011

I A 26

s l 5

100 100

_- 1351.- -1414-

I TABLEAU 2 ( s u i t e ) / TABLE 2 (continued)

8 7

100 100

L351 1626

.- I . . I

1 Í I

I - I I G R E A T BRITAIN (1973) and UNITED K I N G D O N

1 I I 1 12 I 12 I 11

i I I I I ]Tras s a t i s f a i t / IVery s a t i s f i e d ( P l u t a t s a t i s f a i t / IFairly s a t i s f i e d I P',;at8t pas s a t i s f a i t / )Nat very s a t i s f i e d (Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / [Not a t . a l l s a t i s f i e d I Sans rhponse/No reply

I Total

1973 IX % -

7

37

34

20 2

1 O0

1933 - -

I 1976 I 1977 +-e-

l I

I I

7 I 10

44 I 69

30 I 24

13 I 12

1 1977 I 1978

I 8 1 9

I- I 1

54 I 53

21 I 23

9 1 8

1978 I 1979 x-XI I IV % I %

I

I

I

s l 7

45 I 46

28 I 27 i

12 I 13

I

1979 I 1980 I 1981

I I

I I

I I I I

7 1 9 ; 6

45 I 42 I 42

28 I 27 I .29

13 I 16 I . 13

I I GREAT BRITAIN (1973) and U N I T E D KINGDOW

Tris s a t i s f a i t / Very s a t i s f i e d P l u t a t s a t i s f a i t / Fairly s a t i s f i e d P l u t a t pas s a t i s f a i t / Not very s a t i s f i e d Pas s a t i s f a i t du tout/ Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d Sans rhponse/No reply

Total

N

i I I I I I i 1982 i 1982 i 1983 i 1983 i 1984 IIII- IV^ x I III-IV I x I III-IV 1 x 1 X I X I x -1 x

I

I I

I

14 I 13

46 I 45

25 I 23

9 I 12

i i I I

52 I 49 I 49

23 i 20 i 25 I I

7 1 121 9 6 1 7 1 lo: 1 loi 1 6

100 100 100

1419 1335 1348 1277 1355

I 1984 i 1985 x-XI I III-IV

X I b I

12 I 7

48 I 44 I

I

I 27 1 30

10 I 13

&' I

I I

I 1

I

ä t I I I

I I I

A 27

(Sans rbponse/No reply I 6 6 1 5 7

I 100 100 100 100

13484 9210 9044 8936


6 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 6 1 8 1 .

100 100 100 100 100 100

9327 8788 8976 9021 9001 9911

I,

100

I C O M H U N A U T E / C O U M U N I T Y (1 !

100

9689

I I I I I l i r b s s a t i s f a i t / lVery s a t i s f i e d ( P l u t ô t s a t i s f a i t / I F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d I P l u t t t pas s a t i s f a i t / !Not very s a t i s f i e d ]Pas s a t i s f a i t du t o u t / (Not a t a l l s a t i s f i e d I Sans r6ponse/No reply I

9790 9725 9746

I Total

I N 9909

I I I C O U U U N A U T E / C O M M U N I T Y ( i I

I 9936

- 1982

III-IV x -

8

41

30

14 7

100

11 676

- - -

7 I

I I -I I I I I

t

1 I

I I I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984

X x -

- 8

41

28

16

-

I III-IV I x I III-IV 1 x 1 X I x l I I 1 8 1 8 1 8 I-' I - - I -

I I I

I I I

I 41 1- 43 I 42

1 30 I -28 I -30

1 15 I 14 I 14

6 I loi 1 .6 100 100 100 7 1

8 1984 I 1985 I I I

I X I 4;

x-XI II I I- IV I I % I x I ' % I

I I I I 8 1 8 1

I I

I I

I I

43 I 42 I -32 I 31 I

13 I 14 I

I T I I

7 I I I I I I I I

1 (1) Y c o i p r i s l a Grice B p a r t i r d 'octobre 1980. / Including Greece from October 1980.

.. . ..

. . . - -. . , ,

.

A 28

T A B L E A U 3 / TABLE 3

ATTITUDE A L ' E G A R D DE L'UNIFICATION DE L I E U R O P E OCCIDENTALE

A T T I T U D E TOWARD THE UNIFICATION OF WESTERN EUROPE

D'une façon générale , êtes- vous pour ou cont re l e s e f f o r t s q u i son t f a i t s pour u n i f i e r l 'Europe occiden- t a l e ? SI POUR, êtes- vous t r è s pour ou p l u t ô t pour ? SI C O N T R E , êtes- vous p lu tôt con t re ou t r è s contre ? / In genera l , a r e you f o r , or a g a i n s t e f f o r t s being made t o unify Western Europe ? IF F O R , a r e you very much f o r this, o r only t o some extent ? IF AGAINST, a r e you only t o some ex ten t a g a i n s t or very much a g a i n s t ?

. . . - , . ...

Données provenant pour ' l e s années 1962/1967, y compris j u i n 1962, des sondages commandités par l a U.S. Information Agency e t , pour l e s années su ivan tes , a i n s i que pour fdvr ie r /mars 1952, des sondages commandités par l a Commission des Communautés européennes. Nonobstant quelques d i f f é r e n c e s de formulat ion, l a quest ion l t a i t i n i t i a l e m ë n t :II EtesLvous-en général pour ou c o n t r e l e s e f f o r t s q u i son t f a i t s en vue d ' u n i f i e r l 'Europe occ iden ta le I'? En Grande-Bretagne (de 1955 a 1967). en Allemagne (de f é v r i e r 1955 b a v r i l 1956, a i n s i qu'en j u i n 1962). en I t a l i e (en 1955 e t 1962), l a ques t ion pr6-cisait :'I.. .l'Eur_ope occ iden ta le , y compris l a Grande-Bretagne". En 1970, 1973 e t 1975, il é t a i t demand6 aux ind iv idus i n t e r r o g é s s ' i l s Cta ien t favorab les , i n d i f f i r e n t s , ou défavorables b l ' u n i f i c a t i o n europdenne. Cf. : ''L'Opinion publique e t l 'Europe des Sixt' ; Sondages, P a r i s , no 1 - 1963, p. 46 ; "Les Européens e t l ' u n i f i c a t i o n de l 'Europe, Bruxe l les , j u i n 1972, pp. 71/72 ; Euro-Baromètre no 4 , décembre 1975, pp. 54/56.

The d a t a f o r 1952/1967, inc lud ing June, 1962, a r e from surveys f inanced by t h e U.S. Information Agency and, f o r t h e fol lowing years , as well a s February/Harch 1952, from surveys f inanced by t h e Comaission of t h e European Communities. Notwithstanding some d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e wording, t h e ques t ion was, i n i t i a l l y , a s fol lows : "Are you i n genera l f o r o r aga ins t making e f f o r t s towards un i t ing Western Europe" ? In Great- Bri tain (from 1955 t o 1967), i n Germany (from February 1955 t o Apr i l 1956, a s well a s i n June 1962), t h e ques t ion s p e c i f i e d : "...Western Europe, including Great-Britain" . In 1970, 1973 and 1975. the interviewed i n d i v i d u a l s were asked whether they were i n favour, i n d i f f e r e n t o r not i n favour of t h e European u n i f i c a t i o n . Cf. :"l'Opinion publique e t l 'Europe des Six : Sondages, P a r i s , no 1-1963. p. 46 ; "Europeans and European un i f ica t ion t ' , Brusse l s , June 1972, pp. 71/72 ; Euro-Baromètre no 4 , Decenber 1975, pp. 54/56.

Royaume-Uni (y compris Northern I r e l a n d ) b p a r t i r de 1975. / United Kingdom ( inc lud ing Northern I r e l a n d ) from 1975. - ___

A 29


. . _

I BELGIQUE / BELGIE I I I I I I I I

. .

1 1962 11-111 17-

I 34

Très pour/ I For very much I 31 P l u t ô t pour/ I For t o so ie ex ten t P l u t ô t con t re / Against t o some ex ten t 1 4 Très contre/ I Against very much I 1 Sans r(ponse/No r e p l y I 30

T o t a l

N 770

I 100 -

Tres pour/ F o r very much P l u t ô t pour/ For t o some e x t e n t P l i t ô t con t re / Against t o some ex ten t Très contre/ Against very auch Sans rkponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

1970 I 1973 1 1975 11-111 I IX I v - V I

% I % I % I I I I

I I l ' I

31 I 22 I 23

35 I 38 I 32

4 1 3 1 2

2 1 2 1 1 29 I 35 I

1298 1266

1975 X %

21

36

3

1 39

1 O0

1000

1978 i 1979 i 1979 x-XI I I V I x

% I % I % I i I I I I I I

27 1 27 I 23

42 1 44 I 46

4 1 6 1 6

2 1 1 1 2 25 I 22 I

1008 983 1032

1980 I 1980 IV I x-XI % I %

I

I I ' I

20 1 25

47 I . .40.

5 1 8

BELGIQUE / BELGIE

I I I I I I I 1981

18

42

6

3

1981

27

43

5

2 / 949 973 1210 1020 1038

i 1984 i 1984

I I

I I I I I 9 1 6 l I I 3 1 1

I 20 I 29

I 47 I 51

19 I 21 I 13

100 100 100

995 1018 1035

I 1985 I

III-IV + I

30 I I

54 I I

4 1 I

1 1

A-

A 30

100

1073


- 100 100 100 100 100

1029 994 1024 1006 1009

T r i s pour/ For very much P l u t a t pour/ For t o some e x t e n t P l u t 8 t con t re / Rgainst t o some e x t e n t lr8s con t re / \ g a i n s t very much Sans réponse/No r e p l y

l o t a l

Y

- _ _ _ .

i DANMARK i i 1- i 1973 i 1975 i 1975 i I 9 7 8 I I X I v - V I I x I x - X I I X I X I X I X

i 17 I

I 28 I

I 14 I

I 18 I

i 17 I

I 24 I

I 13 I

I 17 I

i 15 I

I 27 I

I 16 I

I 18 I

15

33

17

15

iw I 1199 1073 1023 1002

I 1 1 I I I I

1979 i 1979 i 1980 i 1980 i 1981 i ,1981 I V 1 X I I V I x - X I I I V I x - X I X I X I X I X I X I X

I 14

35

18

13 20

i i I I I I

I I 20 I 21 I

13 I 12 I 33 I 27 I 18 I 19 I

16 I 21 I

i i I I I I I I

16 I 17 I

31 I 29 I 19 I 16 I 14 I 18 I 20 I 20 I

12

31

22

17 18

- , . . . .

I l I I DANHARK I I

I I I I I lTrh pour/ ) F o r very much l p l u t a t pour/ (For t o some e x t e n t ! P l u t ô t con t re / I

I A g a i n s t t o some e x t e n t [ T r è s con t re / I Against very much I Sans rCponse/No r e p l y I I T o t a l

IN

I 1- I 1982 I 1982 I 1983 11;-,,I ; i I I i - I V

I I I I

I I

I I

13 I 12 I 13

29 I 28 I 32

22 I 19 I 19

20 I 18 I 18

1211

1 - 1983 I 1984

i 11 I 11

I 27 i 25

I I

20 I 20

i l I I I I

19 I 22 I I , 100 100

I 990 1022

- 1 A 31

1952 1954 1955 1955 1956 1956 1957

I ] T r è s pou r / l F o r ve ry much I P l u t ô t pour / l F o r t o s o i e e x t e n t

1962 1962 1964

P lu tô t c o n t r e / Aga ins t t o some e x t e n t Très c o n t r e / Aga ins t v e r y much Sans r6ponse/.No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

100 I 100

1591 836

. - - I I I I I T r è s pou r / ] F o r very much .

I P l u t ô t pou r / ( F o r t o some e x t e n t

I P l u t ô t c o n t r e / / A g a i n s t t o some e x t e n t I Très c o n t r e / I A g a i n s t v e r y much I Sans réponse lNo r e p l y

I T o t a l

100 I 100 I 100 100 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 820 813 863 1159 1299 1523 1234 1202

Très pou r / F o r ve ry much _ _ P l u t ô t pou r / F o r t o some e x t e n t P l u t ô t c o n t r e / A g a i n s t t o some e x t e n t T d s c o n t r e / A g a i n s t ve ry much Sans r6ponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

- . -

1965 _ _ . - - _

1967 1970 1973 1975 1975 1978 1979 1979 1980

20 I 14 I 20 I 25 I 15 I 13 I 18 I 15 I 19 I 17 I

100

1255

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1000 2021 1957 1039 1002 1006 1003 1005 1009

1980

I 39 I 49 I 43 I 37 I 37 I 36 I 37 I 36 I 87 I I I I I I I I I

) I 1

1981 1981 1982 1982 1983 1983 1984 1984 1985 x-XI I IV - x-XI- I III-IV - x III-IV x I III-IV I x-XI IIII- IV^

% I % ..i.-4L I % . % % % I % I % I % I '

100

1008

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1004 962 1328 1012 1049 1058 992 1053 1007

A 32


Tres pour/ For very much P l u t a t pour/ For t o some extent P l u t a t contre/ Against t o some extent Trh contre/ Against very much Sans r6ponse/No r e p l y

Tota l

N

i ELLAS i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1

I 1-

1980 x - X I

x

33

26

12

11 18

100

1000

-

- .. - . -

1

I I 1981 1 1981

I

I

I

I

* 30 I 36

' 30 I 29

12 I 7

13 I 8

. _ _

i I I I I I I

1982 I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 I 1985 I III-IV I x I III-IV I x I III-IV I x - X I IIII-IV]

X I % I X I % I % I X I X I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I

29 I 36 I 31 I 40 I 28 I 32 I 34 I

' 29 I 2 7 ) ) 30 I 29 I 29 I 35 I 28 1

25 - -. .

1 100 100 100 100 1 O0 100 100

1199 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

. ..

i

x I II % I x

I IX 1 %

I I I

A 33

TABLEAU 3 ( s u i t e ) / TABLE 3 ( c o n t i n u e d )

X I I I IV I XI I v 111-111 I VI I II I % I X I % I % I % I % I % I

36 I 43 Sans r6ponse lNo r e p l y I 24 I 28

T o t a l I 100 100 100 100

N 1345 847 900 805

FRANCE

I 1965 I 1967 I 1970 I 1973 I 1975 I 1975 1 1978 I 1979 I 1979 1 1980

36 I 20 I 22 I 15 I 33 I 26

100 100 100 100 100 100

800 1226 1200 1518 1307 1215

Très pou r / I ) I F o r ve ry much P l u t a t pou r /

1981 x-XI

%

F o r t o some e x t e n t I ) . I

1982 1982 1983 1983 1984 III-IV I x I III-IV I x I III-IV

X I % I % I % i %

P l u t a t c o n t r e / I ) I 7 Aga ins t t o some e x t e n t I ) - I

Aga ins t ve ry auch Sans r(ponse/Nc r e p l y

T o t a l

N

Très c o n t r e / 1 1 5~

i -I I I l I I I

i

11-111 %

24

46 -

6

2 22

1 O0

2046

- I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I

45 ! -__ I I l I I I I

3 1 4 1 3 1 5 1 8 1 7 1 9 1 I I I I I I I

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1

23 I 35 I 26 I 28 I 25 I 24 I 19 I

43 I 51 I 52 I 47 I 51 1 56 I

T rès pou r / F o r ve ry much P l u t ô t pou r / F o r t o some e x t e n t P l u t ô t c o n t r e / A g a i n s t t o some e x t e n t Tres c o n t r e / ...- - -

A g a i n s t ve ry much Sans r6ponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

x-XI I IV % I x

I 17 I 16

52 I 56 -4- __-

I - 9 1 9

. - --I----- ,* 986

1984 x - X I

% .

, 28

52

6

1 13

1 O0

1006

1985 [II-IV . % -

38

47

5

1 9

-

100

1017

- -

. .i .

!

A 34

28 26 32 27 29 27 24 I ---------- 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1181 1007 987 1002 1000 1008 1009

i ITrbs pour/ lFor very auch I P i u t a t pour/ I F o r t o soae e x t e n t I P l u t a t con t re / IAgainst t o soae e x t e n t I Tres cont re / I Against very auch ISans riponse/No rep ly I I To ta l

I N -..

Tres pour/ For very auch P l u t a t pour/ For t o soae e x t e n t P l u t a t con t re / Against t o soae e x t e n t Très con t re / Against very much Sans r&ponse/No reply

Tota l

N


.. . .

I RE LAN0 I

I I I I I I I I I

IX I v-VI I x I x-XI I IV I x I IV I x-XI I IV I x-XI I % I % I % I X I X I X I X I X I x \ X I

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I 4: * . .

I I I I I I I I I I 4 1 7 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 7 1 8 1 5 1

1973 I 1975 I 1975 I 1978 I 1979 I 1979 I 1980 I 1980 I 1981 I 1981 I

21 I 23 I 25 I 24 I 19 I 25 I 19 I 19 I 20 I 21 I

31 I 34 I 32 I 45 I 45 I 43 I 41 I 39 I 39 I 41 I

8 1 8 1 8 1 7 1 9 1 9 1 1 0 1 101 1 5 1 1 1 1

-- I.

100 100 100 100 1 O0 100 100 loó- '100 100

1199 1000 998 1005 997 1006 1008 1007 1005 985 -

I R E L A ND I I

I I I I I I I I I 1982 I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 I 1985 I I I I

III- IV^ x I III-IV I x I III-IV I x-XI I III-IV I I X I X I X I X I % I % I X I X I X I


I 15 I 16 I 16 I 21 I 17 I 18 I 24 I I I I I I I I I I I

x

40 i 41 i 39 i 41 i 41 i 42 i 37 i i i I I


1 2 ) 121 9 1 ' 7 ) 9 ) 8 1 9 1 I I I l I I I I I

I I I I

5 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 6 1

A 35

I 1952 1954 1955 1955 I 1956 1956 1957 1962 I 1962 X II X I I I I V X I v 11-111 I V I % % % I % % % % I %

I I X 1 %

I I

1964 II %

i I I T r b s pour/ lFo r very auch I P l u t ô t pour/ lFo r t o soae ex ten t -- . - -

19 34 I 36 27 27 32 34 28 ISans réponse/No r e p l y I 29

I T o t a l I 100 100 100 100 100 : I 100 I 100 100 100

1505 808 814 803 911 : 1269 1562 1344 1175 I" I ITALIA c

L

I 1965'1 1967 I 1970 I 1973 I 1975 I 1975 I ,1978 I 1979 I 1979 I 1980 I

28 17 27 20 19 12 9 10 lSans réponse/No r e p l y I 31

I 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1166 1023 1822 1909 1043 1110 1030 1178 1170 I:""'

I v- VI I v 111-111 I I X I v - V I I X I X I I V I X I I V I x - . l - - _ I - % % - I - % 1 % I % I % I % I X I %

I ) I II 65 I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-1 -40 I 34 I 39 I 38 I 32 I 39 I 40 I 35 I I ) I 68 I

12

100

1116

. - 36 i -- 38 i 39 i 51 i 48 i 45 i 48 i - . I ) +- . i . 38 i

I 1980 1981 1981 1982 1982 1983 1983 1984 I 1984 I x - X I I V x - X I I I I - I V x I I I - I V x I I I - I V I x - X I

I I 1 % % % % % % % % I % I

1985 I I I - I V

%

]Sans rhponse/No r e p l y I 12

I 100

1108 ;:"" 7 11 I 14 I 17 I 14 I 13 I 15 I 9 11

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1183 1070 1301 1__025 1031 1033 1060 1097 1127

A 36

1975 i 1975

+-t+ I I

48 I 47


I 3 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

I 100 100 100 100 100 1 500 399 300 300 304

i i LUXEMBOURG I

10 5

100 100

300 299

i I I

i I l

Très pour/ F o r very much P l u t ô t pour/ For t o some e x t e n t P l u t ô t con t re / Against t o some e x t e n t Très con t re / Against very much Sans rCponse/No r e p l y

lotal

i 1970 i 1973 i1IE"II , '%" I I I I 52 I 47 I I I 24 I 33 i i I 2 1 ' 1 I I

31 i 39 I I

2 1 1

-.1 I ., 18 I 13.

I 1978 i 1979

+i+- I

I I

31 I 47

43 I 42

13 I 5 i

5 1 2 -3 I - 4

100 I 100

291 I ' 299

I 1979 I 1980 +

I

I I

48 I 48

40 I 38

7 1 6

1 1 3

i v 1980 i 1981 i

I I 46 I 45 I

I I 39 1 42 I

I I 9 1 6 1

I I 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 1

I I I LUXEMBOURG I

- - - _ _ - _ . I I i I I I I (Très pour/ l F o r very much I P l u t ô t pour/ lFor t o some e x t e n t I P l u t ô t con t re / ) A g a i n s t t o some e x t e n t I Très con t re / ) A g a i n s t very much I Sans rCponse/No r e p l y

I T o t a l

i I I I I I I I I I I I I 1981 I 1982 I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 I 1985 I I l I x-XI I III-IV I x I III-IV I x I III-IV I x-XI I III-IV I I I 1 x 1 X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I I I i i i i i i i i i

45 i I

38 I I

11 I I

3 1

-4-0 i I

42 I I

5 1 I

3 1

37 I I

41 I I

9 1 I

2 1

39 i 47 1 1 . 1 -I I

8 1 9 1 I I

3 1 3 1

39 I 32 I 43 i 44

I I

I

39 I 38

6 1 9

2 1 ' 4

56 I I

31 I I

4 1 I

2 1 p, 300

A 37


1- I

i I I I l r i s pour/ ]For very much l p l u t a t pour/ l F o r t o some e x t e n t I P l u t a t . contre / . I A g a i n s t ' t o soae e x t e n t I Triis c o n t r e / 1 Against very much I Sans r&ponse/No r e p l y

I T o t a l

I N

i 1962 I 1970

11;1,1 1I;II

I - I

62 I 30

25 I 44 i

3 1 7 i

I I 3

779 1230

I NEOERLANO I

1973 I 1975 I 1975 I 1978 IX I v-VI I X I x-XI X I % I f l X -1 I I I

34 I 37 I 33 I 37 I I I I I I I I I

39 '1 29 I 31 I 46

8 1 3 1 4 1 7

7 1 5 1 3 1 3

1464 1093 1006 913

4 1979 I 1979 I 1980 I 1980 I

I I I I 37 I 34 I 28 I 35 I

I I I I 47 I 48 I 48 I 44 I

I I I I 5 I 8 I 10 I 8 . )

I I I I 3 1 3 1

i I ' I I 1981 I 1981

l % ¡+Y- Tres pour/ i i P l u t ô t pour/ I I- -

P l u t ô t c o n t r e / I I T r i s c o n t r e / I . I .

A g a i n s t very much I 5 1 7

For very much I 30 I 28

F o r t o some e x t e n t I 50 1---46

A g a i n s t t o some e x t e n t I 8 I- 40-

Sans r6ponselNo r e p l y I 7 I 9 1 7

T o t a l

N

NEOERLANO

1982 I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 III-IV I x I III-IV I x

f l X I X I x I I I I I I

24 I 27 I 29 I 33

-- - 52 I . ---48 I 46 I 39 I I I

g . I - . . g l

..I 4 1 6 1 5 1

-10 I 9 I . .. , -1 ..

1 O0 100

I I 1984 1 1984 I 1985

I I l I -

I I 7 1 7 1 6

I I 3 1 3 1 4

30 I 30 I 33

51 I 52 I 46

I I

I I I I I I I I

t - f

33% 100 100 100

1015 I 1018 I 985 I

A 38

I 1952 1954 1 1955 1955 1956 1956 I 1957 1962 x I II XII IV XI I v 11-111 % I x % % % I % %

I IX 1 %

TABLEAU 3 ( s u i t e ) / TABLE 3 (cont inued) I I l

1 9 6 2 m VI I II I

% I % I

I I UNITED KINGDOM I

31 24 20 19 20 23 Sans rhponse/No r e p l y I 27 18

T o t a l I 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1503 832 805 814'-- -BD6 T210- 1232 : 1261 _ _ _ - _ N

I I T r è s pour/ l F o r very much I P l u t ô t pour/ l F o r t o some e x t e n t

23

100

1178

UNITED KINGDOM . - .

I 1965 1967 I 1970 1973 1975 1975 1978 1979 1979 I v-VI v I-II-nI - n --v-n X x-XI IV X

I I x X I % % I x x % % % I

1980 IV - % I

ISans rhponse/No r e p l y I 20

I 100

1179 li"'"'

I P l u t ô t con t re / I ) I I I I I

33 28 26 22

100 100 100 100

992 : 1933 1328 1438 _-

I 11 l1 I

I l5 I

(Aga ins t t o some e x t e n t I ) -1 I Très con t re / I ) l1 I

I 1980 1 1981 I 1981 1 1982 I x-XI I IV I x-XI I III-IV I

I 1 x 1 % I X I x

1982 1983 x III-IV x x

I I I I I I

l6 I l5 I I I

l4 I l2 I 101 6 ) 8 1 101

Sans dponse/No r e p l y I 15

T o t a l I 100

N 1432

1:: I 19

16 1 15 i 100 100 100

19 I 15 13 I 18 20

100 100 100 100 100

1369 1395 1419 1335 1348

1339 I 1317 I 1403 I 1454 1

I- x I III-IV I x-XI II I I - I V X I X I X I f '

I I I I


5 1 7 1 4 1 4 1

29 I 17 I 25 I 30 I 41 I 45 I 44 I 38 I 9 1 161 1 1 1 1 1 1

.:

A 39


20

100

8752

I I EURO 6 I

24 20 22

100 100 100

9153 6149 5691

- - . Très pour/ F o r very auch P l u t ô t pour/ Fo r t o so ie ex ten t P l u t ô t contre/ Against t o so ie ex ten t Tres con t re / Against very much Sans réponselNo r e p l y

T o t a l

N

14 12

100 100

-5442 5589

1 1962

%

40

111-111 -

1

I 32

i 4

1 1 , 23

, 100

6334

- -

12

100

5583

1970 I 1973 I 1975

14

100

5518

' I I

12 13 14 14 I 14 I 14 10

100 100 100 100 100 100 100

5522- 6 6 6 5 5352 5427 5440 5393 5508 . _- -- _ _

34 I 35 I 39 I I

40 I 36 I 37 I I

I I 4 1 3 1 3

2 1 2 1 1

1975 X % -

33

41

2

2

i 1 I

33 I I

47 I I

4 1 I

2 1

I 1979 I 1979 -*

I

I

1

I

34 I 34

47 I 46

6 1 6

1 1 2

I 1980 I 1980

I I

49 I 44 I

6 1 7 I

+F- 30 I 32

-+ 5426

I I I I I I 1Trè.s pour/ l F o r very much I P l u t ô t pour/ l F o r t o so ie e x t e n t I P l u t ô t con t re / IAga ins t t o some ex ten t I Très contre/ )Aga ins t very h c h I Sans rCponse/No r e p l y

I l o t a 1

I N I

. . . - __ . . . . . . - . . . .. . . .

i

1985 I I

I I 37 I I

I I 4 4 1 . I

I I 5 1 I

I I I

-I-t

+%-t

A 40

100

13484

TABLEAU 3 ( s u i t e ) / TABLE 3 (cont inued) ~

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

9550 9150 8788 8976 gÖ21 8882 9001 9878 9911

. . , . _ . '.

I l- I I COMNU NAU T E / COMMU N I TY ( 1 ) I I

T r i s pour/ F o r very much P l u t 8 t pour/ F o r t o some e x t e n t P l u t t t con t re / Against t o some e x t e n t T r i s con t re / Against very much Sans r€ponse/No. r e p i y

T o t a l

w

I I I I I I I I I I t

1 1973 I 1975 I 1975 I 1978 I 1979 I 1979 I 1980 I 1980 I 1981 I 1981 I

i i i i i I I I I I 30 I 35 I 31 1 30 I 30 I 30 I 27 I 29 I 26 I 31 I

l I I I I ' I I I I I 33 i 34 i 38 i 45 i ' -45 i 45 i 46 i 43 i 43 i 43 i

6 1 5 1 5 1 8 1 6 1 8 1 9 1 9 1 1 0 1 '9 .1 1 . 1 I I I I. I I I I

I 1 7 I 1982 I 1982 I 1983 i I I I - I V [ f I I i - I V I x

lT r t% pour/ i i I - I P l u t 8 t pour/ I I I F o r t o some e x t e n t I 45 I 44 I 45 P l u t a t con t re / I I I T r i s con t re / I 1 - I Against very much I 5 1 4 1 3

IFor very much I 26 I 26 I 29

Against t o some e x t e n t I 10 I 10 I 8

Sans r€ponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

COHMUNAUTE/COHMUNITY ( 1 )

I 1983 I -1984

x I I I I - I V X I X

i I I I

' 31 I 25

44 I 46

7 I 10

3 1 4 15 15

I 1984 I 1985

I

I I

I

30 I 35

47 I 42

8 1 7

I

47- I X

(1) Y compris l a Grace h p a r t i r d 'oc tobre 1980. / I n c l u d i n g Greece f r o m October 1980.

A 41

27 3ö - 28 I 21 22 26 I 26 I 21 I 14

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1006 1008 949 973 1210 1020 1038 995 1016

TABLEAU 4 / TABLE 4

I .

L'ENTENTE ENTRE LES PAYS DE LA COMMUNAUTE EUROPEENNE AU COURS DES DOUZE DERNIERS M O I S

THE UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY OVER THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS

Au cours des 12 dern ie rs mois, à v o t r e avis, l ' e n t e n t e en t re l e s pays de l a Communauté Européenne (Marché Commun) a- t- el le , dans l 'ensemble, p l u t ô t progressé, p l u t ô t régressé, ou e s t - e l l e restée à peu près sans changement 3-/ I n -your -ep%nhn,--over the l a s t 12 months, has the understanding between the coun t r ies of the European Community (Common Market) i n general increased, decreased o r stayed about the same ?

100 100 100 100 1 O0

1211 995 1027 1000 1022

I I I P l u t a t progressh/ I Increased i n genera l l p l u t t i t r i g r e s s e l I Decreased i n genera l IA peu p r i h sans change- Iment/About the same I Sans rhponse/No r e p l y

I Tota l

I N

BELGIQUE / 8ELGIE 1

I Ï I I DANMARK I I I I I I I I P l u t ô t progressh/ I Increased i n genera l 1 P l u t ô t régressé/ IDecreased i n genera l I A peu pres sans change- I ment/About the same I Sans r&ponse/No r e p l y

I T o t a l

i - 1

I - -

1 19

~ 31

40 10

100

992 -

I I 1978 I 1981 I 1981

-x$' i i - - - -1- I

- - I I

I I

16 I 11 I 9

19 I 35 I 36

43 I - - 35 I 40 22 19 I 15

100 100 100

1002 1006 1009

1982 I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1985 I I I I I - I V I x 1 I I I - I V 1 x I I I I - I V I

% I % I % i % I % I %

I I I l I I I 111 1 2 1 9 1 1 3 1 1 0 1

A 42

14 21 19 14

100 100 100 mo 999 1006 1004 962 _ - - -

~ I

12 15 13 16 13

100 100 100 100 100

1328 1012 1049 1058 1007 - . - - . ._- -

l I I I I I I I P l u t a t p rogress i / I Increased i n genera l I P l u t a t r(gress(/ IDecreased i n genera l IA peu p r i s sans change- I “/About t h e same I Sacs r¿ponse/No r.eply I

37 30

100 (100

: - 1000 1000

I T o t a i

I N

36 32 40 31 32

100 100 100 100 100

1199 1000 1000 1000 1000

I -. -. . . . - . ELLAS - I I i 1 I I I I I I I I I I

P l u t a t p r o g r e s s i / Inc reased i n genera l P l u t a t r l g r e s s i l Decreased i n genera l A peu p r i s sans changement/About t h e same Sans r¿ponse/No r e p l y

I T o t a l

i i FRANCE i I i

I I P l u t a t p r o g r e s s i /

. I Increased i n genera l I P l u t a t r (g ress i / IOecreased i n genera l I A peu p ras sans change- I ment/About the same I Sans r iponse/No r e p l y

1977 I 1978 I 1981 I 1981 x - X I I x- X I I I V 1 x - X I

X I % I X I x I I I I I I l I I

24 I 23 I 16 I 16

16 I 11 I 20 I 21

46 I 46 I 47 I 52

1149 1194 1006

I 1982 I 1982

I

I - I

11 I 14

31 I 24

43 I 50

1199 939

1 1983 i 1983 i 1985 I I I - I V I x I I I I - I V

% I x l x I . I l I

I ,I

9 1 9 1 30

30 I 22 I 13

46 I 56 I 47

A 43

TABLEAU 4 ~ ( s u i t e ) / TABLE 4 (cont inued)

I / 1 . i ' ' ' IRELAND

, . . . . .

P l u t a t p rogress i / . , -

Increased i n genera l P l u t ô t r i g r e s s i / Decreased i n genera l A peu prhs sans changement/About the same Sans riponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

I i- I 1977 I x - X I I X I I 42 I l ' 9 I I 38 1- 11

I 100

I '997 -

1978 I 1981 I 1981 I 1982 x - X I I I V I x - X I I I I I - I V % I % I % I %

I I I I I I I I I

46 I 23 I 26 I 19

9 I 22 I 14 I lÉ

I I I I I I I I I

46 I 23 I 26 I 19

9 I 22 I 14 I lÉ

31 I 44 I 46 I 44

~ 1 11 1 14 1 19

100 100 100

1005 1005 985 1181

1982 I 1983 I 1983 x I I I I - I V I x % I % I %

I I

I I 22 I 17 I 21

20 I 19 I 26 I I

46 I 42 I 41 12 22 I 12

I I

1985 I I I

% I % I I I

20 I I I I

14 I I I I

471 . . . . I

n I I I - I V I

1009

I ITALIA i . _ . . i

I I - - - i _ L - 1 1977 1 1978 1- 1981

P l u t ô t p rogress i / I I I P l u t ô t r i g r e s s i / I I -- I -- -

A peu prbs sans change- I I I

Increased i n genera l I 35 I 33 I 19

Decreased i n genera l I 18 I 10 I 24

ment/About the same I 22 I 25 I 41 Sans r iponse/No r e p l y I 25 I T o t a l

N

--1981-. x- XI

% -

21 .. .. .

26

35 18

100

1070.

I I -1982 I 1982 I 1983 I I ; - Iv~~- ; I 11yv

I I 10 I 12 I 11

i i I I

26 I 19 I 17

36 I 44 I 46

I m 1983 1 1985 I I.

x I I I I - I V I I

I i I I

1- I 1977 I 1978 I 1981 I 1981 i x- X I i x - X I ' i I V I x - X I I X I X I X I %

i P l u t ô t p rogress i / i i i i I P l u t ô t r i g r e s s i / , I I I I

I A peu prhs sans change- I I I I

( Inc reased i n genera l I 28 I 27 I 19 I 23

(Decreased i n genera l I 19 I 10 I 26 I 31

Iment/About the same I 41 I -53+ . - 45 I 42 I Sans r iponse/No r e p l y

I T o t a l

I N I 344 I 291 I 300 I 500

I I I - I V - } - x I I I I - I V I x I I I I - I V I I % I X I % I % . I % I % I

I l I I I I 8 1 121 1 1 1 141 2 8 1 I '

I I I I I I 35 1 29 I 38 I 29 I 13 I I

I * I I I I I 40 I 50 I 43 I 52 I 50 I I I[ 399 300 300 304 300

A 44


ISans rbponse/No r e p l y I 14 22 10 I 11 15 12 13

I 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

943 913 1091 1011 1228 1056 998

NEDERLAND

12 15

100 100

1050 985

l 7- I I I I I 1977 I 1978 1 1981 I 1981 I 1982 I 1982

x - X I I x - X I I- -€v- I X- K I I I I - I - I V I .- x- % I % I % I X I % I t

I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I

32 I 27 I 11 I 15 I 11 I 11

17 1,' 17 I 51 I 34 I 39 I 35

I I I I i I P l u t ô t progressé/ I Increased i n genera l I P l u t ô t régressé/ I Decreased i n genera l IA peu p rbs sans change- I ment/About t h e same I Sans rhponse/No r e p l y

1 T o t a l

I

_ _ .. I

1983 i 1983

I I

I

11 I 13

25 I 23

I - 1 1985 I i

I I 17 I I

I I 17 I I

I I I

1443

I I l I I COMMUNAUTE/COMMUNITY (1 I

P l u t ô t progressé/ Increased i n genera l P l u t ô t régressé/ Decreased i n genera l A peu p res sans changement/About t h e same Sans rhponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

I I I I

x - X I I x - X I I I V I x - X I I I I I - I V % I X I X I X I X

1977 I 1978 I 1981 I 1981 I 1982

i i 28 I 28 I

I I 19 I 12 I

I I 38 I 38 I

I ~ 33 I

I 36 I

i I

19 I 11

26 I 34 I

41 I 39 15 1 1 16 1 1 16

100 100 100

8936 8788 9898 9911 11676

I I I I I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1985 I I

x I I I I - I V I x I I I I - I V I X I X I X I X I X

i i I I I I

44 I 47 I

13 I 11 I 27 I 25 I

i i 11 I 19 I

I I

I I 49 I 49 I

25 I 17 I

100 100

(1) Y compris l a Grbce à p a r t i r d 'oc tobre 1980. / I n c l u d i n g Greece from October 1980.

TABLEAU 5 / TABLE 5

Sans r€ponse/No r e p l y I 35 29 I 24

T o t a l I 100 100 100

N 1038 1018 1035

LE SENTIMENT QUE SON PAYS A BENEFICIE DE SON APPARTENANCE A LA COUUUNAUTE

I 24 I ' I I 100

1016

THE FEELING THAT H I S COUNTRY HAS BENEFITED FROU BEING A MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Tou t b i e n cons idh ré , est imez- vous que ( v o t r e pays a b é n h f i c i é ou non de son appartenance ?i l a Communauth europhenne (March6 commun)? / Tak ing e v e r y t h i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , would you say t h a t ( y o u r c o u n t r y ) has on ba lance b e n e f i t e d o r n o t f r om b e i n g a member o f t h e European Community (Common Market )?

8

T o t a l I 100

N -1 1049

100 100 100

992 1053 1007

i I

. - 1 7 I 1983 1 1984 I 1984 i I I I - I V 1 I I I - I V I äd+

A b C n C f i c i 6 I B e n e f i t e d N'a pas b h n d f i c i h / Not b e n e f i t e d Sans r iponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

I, 100 100 100

I 1027 996 990

DANMARK I I

I I I I I I 1985 I I I I I I I

I % I

I % I

I I I - I V I I % I % I X I % I % I

44 I I I I I I I I- I I I I l I

34 I I I I I I I - __ _.

22 I I- - - I I I I I

A 46

)Sans rCponse/No reply I 31 I 21 I 21

I 100 100 100

1000 1000 1000

TABLEAU 5 (suite) / TABLE 5 (continued)

25 I I I I I I> 100

1000

I 100

I 1011

l I IA bCnCficiCIBenefited lNla pas bCn€ficiC/ I Not benefited I Sans reponse/No reply I

100 100 100

1008 1006 1017

I Total I N

Sans rlponse/No reply I 16 I 12

Total I 100 100

N 987 1000

i i I I I 1 I I I I I I

11 I 11 I I I I I I I , 100 100

1008 1009 -

I 1983 I 1984 - 1 -1-984 I 1985 I - . . I I 1 - 1 - I I I

% 1 ; I

% I I

% I I

% I I

X I IIII- IV^ III-IV I x-XI I III-IV 1 I 1 x 1 % I % I % I % I

IRELAND I I I I I I I I 1 I I

A 47

Sans r6ponse/No reply I 17 22 I 14

Total I 100 100 100

N 1031 1060 1097


16 I I I I I I I~_ 100

1127

ITALIA

Sans dponse/No reply I 14 13 I 12 I 14 I I I I I Total I 100 100 100 100

N I 300 300 299 300

I>

Sans r6ponse/No reply I 11 I 16

Total I 100 100

N 998 1015

I , . -

I I I 17 I 19 I 100 100

1018 985 \

. .

...

Sans réponse/No reply I 11 I 12 11 I 11 I Total I 100 100 100 100

N 1348 1355 1405 1443

A 48

I , . - I I I


_- .. . .

I I

Sans réponse/No reply I 23 I 24 18 I 18 I Total I 100 100 100 100

N 9790 9746 9909 9936

\

I I I I

A 49

I 1973 1974 1974 1975 1975 1976 1976 1977 I I X I V - v x - X I v - V I X v - V I X I I V - v 1 %

I % % % % % % %

I I

TABLEAU 6 / TABLE 6

1977 x - X I

%

JUGEMENT PORT€ SUR L'APPARTENANCE A LA COMMUNAUTE EUROPEENNE

ATTITUDE TO MEMBERSHIP I N THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY . . . . .

I Sans r&ponse/No r e p l y I 19 14 16

\ T o t a l I 100 100 100

1266' -1017 1 6 5 I" 19 17 16 12 10 16

100 100 100 100 100 100

-1507 1000 963 1077 988 1006

I I 1978 1976 1979 I v- V I x- XI I V

I 1 % % % I I 1979 1979 I 1960 1980 1981 1981

V I (1) x I I V x - X I I V x - X I % % I % % x x

I Sans rbponse/No r e p l y I 15

I 100

1013 I:""' fQ - -le--- - 21 16 16 18 18 14

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 - 1006 963 965 1032 1009 1022 949 973

I 1962 1962 IIII-IV x

I 1 % % I I 1963 1983 1984 1984 1985

I % I

III-IU x III-SV x-XI III-IV I x % % % % % I

ISans reponse/No ._ r e p l y I_- A 13

( T o t a l I 100

1210

20 16 14 9 5 6

100 100 100 100 100 100

1020 '1038 995 1018 1035 1016 L

TABLEAU 6 ( s u i t e ) / TABLEAU 6 (cont inued)

I I I I I I 1 I I I l t '

I I 1'

I I I I I I I l I

I I I I I I I I I 42 I 35 I 33 I 36 I 41 I 36 I 29 I 30 I 37 I 30 1 31 I 35 1 25 I 27 I 29 I 34 I 30 I 33 I

I 19 I 24 I 25 I 28 1 24 I 22 I 28 I 30 I 24 I 9 10 7 11 8 13 9 10 6

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1199 - . -1-W 1100 1073 1023 977 962 IOLO 992 -

i I DANMARK I

8 9 12 14 10 10 9 9 11

100 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

983 i 1002 1073 1018 1029 994 1024 1006 1009 !

i I I I I I I Bonne chose/Good t h i n g Inauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g - (Chose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ I N e i t h e r good nor bad I Sans r&ponse/No r e p l y

( T o t a l

-

Sans r(ponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l 1 O0

N 1211

Bonne chose/6ood t h i n g Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g Chose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ N e i t h e r good nor bad Sans r¿ponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

1

100 100 100 100 100 100

995 1027 1000 996 990 1022 -

OAlMARK I

~ IX I IV-v I x-XI I v-VI I X I v-VI I XI I IV-v I x-XI X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I t

I I I I I I I I t 1978 i 197a-i 1979 i 1979 i 1979 i 1980 i 1980 -i - 1981 i 1981 i v-VI I x-XI I IV I VI (1) I x I IV I x-XI I IV I x-XI I

X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I

A 51 . .

I sanr riponre/Ho rep ly I 15

I i o t a l I 100

I" 996


. .

12 9 1 8 11 10 14 10

- lp0 - loõ 100 100 100 loo 100 100 ~~

4006 1003 807 1005 1009 1008 1004 962

I

S8nr r6ponrelUo rep ly I 7 i o t a 1 I 100

---. -1-328- I . . - -. . .. . .

I I i I I I

6 8 10 11 5 9

100 100 100 100 100 100

- -1012 . - 1049 1058 992 1053 1007

- - . . ..

L

I íBonne chore/600, t h ing l l lauvaire chore/Brd th ing )Chore n i bonne n i mauvaite/ I l e i t h e r good nor bad I Sans r6ponse/Wo. rep ly

i 1- 1973 i 1974 i 1974 i 1975

I X I I V - v I x - X I I v - V I X I X I X I x

I I I

I I I

63 I 59 I 62 I 56 4 ) 8 1 101 8

22 I 26 I 20 I 28

1957 1060 1042 1039

DEUTSCHLAND

1975 X x -

61 6

27 6

100

1002

-

-

1976 I 1976 I 1977

I I

I I

48 I 57 I 54 121 5 1 8

30 I 31 I 23

-+ :;: 1 I

59 I 7 1

I 3 ~I I DEUTSCHLAND

-. . DEUTSCHLAND - -. _ _ .

I I I I I I !Bonne chose/Good t h i n g I Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g (Chose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ I N e i t h e r good n o r bad I Sans rCponse/No r e p l y

{ 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100

A 52

TABLEAU 6 ( s u i t e ) / TABLEAU 6 ( c o n t i n u e d )

I I I

100 I 100 I 100 I . . .

I ELLAS I I I I I I I I I I I I

I T o t a l

I N

1981 IV x

42 22

26

- 1981 I 1982 x I IV X I x

I

I

38 I 33 21 I 15

26 I 37

1982 I 1983 x I III-IV x í x

I

I

45 I 42 13 I 12

30 I 29

1983 I 1984 * I

I

47 I 38 12 I 18

30 I 35

1984 I 1985 x-XI I III-IV

X I x I

45 I 45

I 16 I 17

29 I 26

A 53

j 1 2 ) 7 9 1 7 1 5

I 100 100 100 100 100

I 2227 1308 1237 1156 1276


6 6 s l 6 1 ,

100 100 100 100

1241 1356 1256 1149

I l I I FRANCE I i

Sans réponse/No r e p l y I 10 8 8

T o t a l I 100 100 100

N 1276 1194 1152

i I I I I I laonne chose/Good t h i n g )Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g IChose n i bonne n i rauvaise/ )Ne i the r good nor bad I Sans réponse/No r e p l y I

11 10 8 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 1 ,

100 100 100 100 100 100

1002 986 993 986 991 1006 b

1 T o t a l

I N

Sans r6ponse/No r e p l y I 8 1 5 1 10

T o t a l I 100 100 100

N 1199 939 1011 -

I I I I I I I I l I I

7

100

1000

i 1973 i 1974 i 1974 i 1975 i 1975 i 1976 i 1976 i 1977 i 1977 i i IX i IV-v i x-XI i v-VI i x i v-VI i X I i IV-v i x-XI I 1 % 1 %. I % I % I % I % I % I % I % 1 ' i i i I i i i i i I

I I I I I l I I I I I 61 I 68 I 63 I 64 I 67 I 57 I 52 I 64 I 57 I I 5 1 5 1 6 1 4 1 4 1 7 1 7 1 6 1 9 1

I 22 I 20 -1 22 I 25 I 24 I 30 I 35 I 24 I 28 1

i i FRANCE i

1984 I 1984 I 1985 I I I % I

III-IV I x-XI I III-IV I I X I % I X I % I

I I I 1 I 62 I 63 I 68 I I I 4 1 5 1 6 1 I I

I I I I I 27 I 27 I 21 I I I 7 1 5 1 5 1

A 54

47 I 46 I 49 I 26 I 22 I 19 I

21 I 27 I 27 I I I I


... I I I i i IRELAND i I I

1 7 I 1973 I 1974 I 1974

I I I

Chose n i bonne n i mauvaisc/ I I I Neither good nor bad I 21 I 19 I 22

Bonne chose/Good th ing I 56 I 48 I 50 Mauvaise chose/Bad th ing I 15 I 25 I 24

Sans r6ponse/No rep ly

Total

I 1975 I 1975

I ' 20 I 12

I

50 I 67

25 I 17

1000 I , 998

I 1976 I 1976

I

I

50 I 50 16 I 22

1007

1977 I 1977

I

I

57 I 59 17 I 19

I Í I I IRE LAND I I l I I I I

Bonne chose/Good th ing Uauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g Chose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ Nei ther good nor bad Sans r(ponse/No reply

Total

N

I 1978 I 1978

I I

I I I 54 I 63 I 17 I 12

I I 1979 I 1979

54 I 56 14 i 16

I 24 I 14

8 I 14

I 1979 I 1980

i

I

58 I 52 12 I 19

1006

I l I I 1 1980 i 1981 i 1981 i

x-XI I IV- I x-XI X I X I X

1005 x 5

I I IRELAND i I

I I I I Bonne chose/Good t h i n g I Uauvaise chose/Bad th ing ]Chose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ INeither good nor bad I Sans riponse/No reply

I Tot a l

I I I I 1982 I 1982 I 1983' IIII-IV1 ; 1 IIk-IV l x I I I I 44 I 47 I 45 I 18 I ' 21 I 20 I I I I 29 I 27 I 28

I 1983 I 1984

--+-PF I

I

42 I 43 25 I 23

26 I 27

I 1181 1007 987 1002 1000

I I I I 1 1984 I 1985 I I I

X I X I X I X x-XI I III-IV I

I I I I 47 I 53 I I I 20 I 20 I I I

I I I I 27 I 21 I I

. . -. . .

A 55

T A B L E A U 6 ( s u i t e ) / TABLE 6 (cont inued)

I I i

i 14 9 4

I 100 100 100

1909 1030 1021

i I I I I I I I Bonne chose/Good t h i n g I Mauvaise chose/Bad thing )Chose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ I N e i t h e r good nor bad I Sans r(ponse/No r e p l y I

5 5 11 11 6 7

100 100 1008 100 100 100

1043 1110 923 1052 1025 1155 L I

I Sans r(ponse/No r e p l y 1 9

I T o t a l I 100

1301 I"

I I T A L I A I I I

10 8 8 7 6 6

100 100 ~ 100 100 100 100

1025 1031 1033 1060 1097 1127 -

I i I I I I I I I I I I 1973 I 1974 I 1974 I 1975 I 1975 I 1976 I 1976 I 1977 I ' 1977 I I I X I I V - v I x - X I I v - V I I X I v - V I I X I I I V - v I x - X I

x

i i i i i i I i I I 1 1 5 1 9 1 111 2 1 1 1 6 1 2 0 1 1 6 1 1 8 1 1 8 1

I ' I t I I I I Bonne chose/Good t h i n g I Nauvaise chose/Ead t h i n g IChose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ I N e i t h e r good nor bad I Sans rCponse/No r e p l y I

I I I

1978 I 1978 ,+++ I

I 65 I 73

5 1 3

18 I 16

1979 I V x -

78 2

14 6

100 - -

1178 -

I T A L I A I I I

1979 I 1979 I 1980

+t++ I I

I I

75 I 75 I 74 4 1 2 1 3

13 I 17 I 16

1170 1116

I I 1980 I 1981 I 1981 x;1 I 'x' i x;1

I i 71 I 73 I 70

5 1 5 1 5 i i

17 I 19 I 20

1108 1183 1070

. I T A L I A

A 56


I I I , 1973 I 1974 I 1974

I I- I I LUXEMBOURG l I

I Sans r6ponse/No r e p l y 1 6

I T o t a l I 100

322 IN

I I I l8onne chose/Good t h i n g I Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g IChose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ I N e i t h e r good nor bad ISans réponselNo rep.ly. .

I T o t a l

8 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 I. 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 O0

298 300 300 300 500 291 299 - -

I N

i i

I I

67 I 79 I 73 3 1 4 1 3

22 I 12 I 13 8 1 5 1 11

I 1975 I 1975

I 7 1 4 . I 19 I 12

65 I 78

9 1 6 * .. .

l I 1 v - V I I X I I I V - v I x - X I

X I % I X I X

1976 I 1976 I 1977 I 1977

21 I 17 I 11 I .17 8 1 4 1 3 1 7

I leonne chose/Good t h i n g I Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g IChose n i bonne n i rauvaise/ I N e i t h e r good n o r bad I Sans rQponse/No r e p l y

I T o t a l

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1982 I 1982 I 1983 i 1983 i 1984 1 1984 i 1985 i i i

I X I -

IIII-IV! x I III-IV I x I III-IV I x-XI I III-IV I I I X I % I X I X I X I X I X I X I

i I

i i i i i - i i i i I 73 I 72 I 72 I 76 I 80 I 80 I 84 I I I 2 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 4 1 2 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I -

I 100 100 100 100 100 I 100 100 I I I 399 300 300 304 300 I 299 300 1

6 3 5 2 3 1 4 1 I I 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

399 300 300 304 300 299 300

A 57


I 13 16 1 9 15 I 18

I 100 100 100 100 100

I 1464 1000 1013 1093 1006

I I I

'.i ..I I I I I I I I I I 6 1 8 1 4

100 100 100

904 1123 1033

Bonne chose/Good t h i n g Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g Chose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ Ne i the r good nor bad Sans r(ponse/No r e p l y

I T o t a l I 100

I 1131

I T o t a l

I N

-100 1 0 0 . - 100 100 100 I 100 100 I 100 I 913 974 1159 1092 999 I 1114 1091 I 1011 I

I NEDE RLANO

1 Sans réponselNo r e p l y 1 6

I T o t a l I 100

1228 IN

I I - I I I I I I I

6 s l 4

100 100 100 1056 998 1050

i -t

1977 I x-XI I x7

I 74 I 5 1

I

i I - : - NEDERLAND i I I l

I I I 1978 I 1978 I 1979 1 1979

I 78 1 83 I 84-1- 52

, I v-VI I x-XI I IV I V I (1) I I I I Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g I 5 1 2 1 2 1 6

% 1 ~ .-%--l... .?i-- I . _, 5 leonne chose/Good t h i n g

1979 I 1980 I 1980 I 1981 I 1981 I x I IV I x-XI I IV 1 x-XI I % I % I % I % I % T

76 I 75 I 75 I 76 1 75 I 3 1 3 1 5 1 6 1 3 1

I Sans réponselNo r e p l y I I I I I I 1 I I I I

I I NE DERLANO I i ' i I I

1- I 1982 I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 IIII- IV^ x I III-IV I - - - x

% % % I % I I - 1. --_I - I I I -- I I (Bonne chose/Good t h i n g __ 1 74 I 74 I 77 I 80 I Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g I 4 1 5 1 4 1 4

1984 1 1984 I 1985 I I I III-IV I x-XI I III-IV I I

% I % I % i I I I

80 I 79 I 77 I 5 1

3 , ! I I I 13 I 13 I 11 I 4 1 4 1 7 1 i

A 58

TABLEAU 6 ( su i te ) I TABLE 6 (continued)

17

100

1028

I I , I I I 1 I I I )Bonne chose/6ood th ing I Mauvaise chose/Bad th ing IChore n i bonne n i mauvairc/ !Neither good nor bad (Sans riponse/No rep ly

-

13 9 9 13 8 9 8 8

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1933 1031 1039 1328 1438 1077 992 1340 _ _ . . -- - _ _ . -

UNITE0 KINGOOM I

I Sans rCponse/No rep ly i 9 -

1 100

1038

I:""'

I I 1 I I 1 I I c

11 6 24 3 7 8 5 5

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ,. 976 1351 1697 1414 945 954 1351 1426

L

1972 1973 I 1974 I 1974 1 1975 I 1975 I 1976 I 1976 I 1976 I x 1 IX I IV-v I x-XI I v-VI I x I I I II I v-VI I

(2) I ( 3 ) I (3) I ( 3 ) I ( 3 ) I (3) I (2) I (2) I ( 3 ) X I X I % I X I % I X I % I X I x

I I I I I I I I I 40 I 31 I 33 I 36 I 47 I 50 I 50 I 49 I 39 I

UNITED - _ - KIN6DOM - I - - I I -

I i

I I I I I I I I

_ . - -

i leonna chote/Good th ing I Mauvaise chose/Bad th ing IChose n i bonne n i .auvaise/ INei ther good nor bad

1 1976 i 1976 i 1976 i 1977 ' i 1977 i 1977 1 VII I IX I XI I I I IV-v I VI

. 39 I . 33 I 39 I 35 I 35 I 33

I I I I I 21 I 19 I 21 I : I 22 I 18

1 31 I 37 I 34 I 41 I 40 I 42

1977 i 1977 i 1978 i x I x-XI I v-VI I

I I I 33 I 37 I 38 I 37 I 35 I 29 I

i i i 22 I 23 I 28 I

i i UNITED KINGDOM i i i

1) I 1978 I 1978 1 1979 I 1979 I 1979 I VII I x-XI I IV I VI I x

I I I I ' I

Chose n i bonne n i mauvairc/ I I I I I

Bonne chose/6ood th ing I 25 I 39 I 33 I 36 I 24 Mauvaise choselBad t h i n g I 48 I 31 I 34 I 42 I 54

Neither good nor bad I 20 I 25 I 26 I 16 I 17 Sans rCponse/No rep ly

Tota l

N

I I I I 1979 I 1980 I 1980 I 1980 I

x I X I I I V I I V I , (3) I (2) I (2) I (3)

% I X I X I t I I I I

I 1 I I

29 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 41 I 55 I 57 I 49 1

25 I 15 1 13 I 22 1

1403 948 943 1454

A 59

6 7 5 3 4 4 8 5

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1015- . 1046 921 1432 923 1369 972 1395 -I

TABLEAU 6 (sui te) / TABLE 6 (continued)

6

100

1419

i I UNITED KINGDOM I

7 5

100 100

977 1335

i I I I I I I leonnr chore/lood thing (Ilruvrire chorr/~rd thing !Chore ni bonne n i mruvrire/ (Weithrr good nor bad I srnr riponre/wo reply

7 7 5 8 6 17 7

100 100 I00 100 100 100 100

950 1348 918 910 1277 1898 1013

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I t 1980.1 1980 I 1980 I 1980 I 1981 I 1981 I 1981 I 1981 I 1982 I

- . .. . .

I I i I I UNITED KINGDOM I I

jBonne chosc/6ood thing (Ilauvrire ehore/Brd thing (Chore n i bonne n i mruvrire/ l l e i thrr good nor bad I srnr riponrr/No reply

lTot81

I"

1 Ï982 l-¡#¡É2 1 1982 1 1983 I 1983 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 I v I x I XI I III-IV I VI I VII I x I II I III I

A 60

Sans r6ponseiiD reply 1 6 5 1 6 9 4

Tota l I 100 100 100 100 100

1355 961 997 960 1405 -- - N


7 5

100 100

930 1443

UNITED KINGDOM

(1) I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e of Communications (London). ( 2 ) Soc ia l Surveys I G d l u p P o n ) . - PÕpÜTä~iOñ of- 18 F e a r s and more, only Great B r i t a i n . /-Populat ion de 18

ans e t au- delà, seulement Grande-Bretagne. ( 3 ) European Omnibus Survey. Populat ion o f 15 years and more. Great B r i t a i n f r o n 1973 t o 1974 ; United

Kingdom a s from 1975 / Populat ion de 15 ans e t au-delà. Grande-Bretagne de 1973 2 1974 ; Royaume-Uni depuis 1975.

( 4 ) NOP Harket Research. Populat ion o f 18 years and more, only Great B r i t a i n . / Population de 18 ans e t au-delà, seulement Grande-Bretagne.

. ~ ....

I I l EURO 6 I

12

100

5913

Bonne chose/Good t h i n g Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g Chose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ Ne i the r good nor bad Sans r6ponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

10 8 8 8 9 10 9 7

100 100 100 100 100 1 O0 100 100

5442 5589 4918 5583 5426 5538 5518 5522

1 1 - I I 1 1973 I 1974 I 1974 I 1975

I 1 I I - I 1982 I 1982-

, I X i I V - v i x - X I i v - V I ~ % I %. I % I %

I I I

I I I I 63 I 67 I 69 I 63 4 1 s l s l 5

1 19 I 18 I 17 I 24 -m 9153" 5723 6114 6149

I I I I I

1975 i 1976 i '1976 i 1977 i 1977 i x i v - V I i X I i I V - v i x - X I i X I % I % I X I % I

I I I I I 22 I 26 I 26 I 21 I 22 I

EURO 6

..._ ..

I Bonne chose/Good t h i n g I Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g IChose n i bonne n i nauvaise/ I N e i t h e r good nor bad I Sans rgponse/No r e p l y

I T o t a l

i 1978 i 1978 i 1979 i 1979 i 1979 i 1980 i 1980 i 1981 i 1981 i

- - I I I- 1 1 EURO 6 i

.

Bonn e chose/ Good t h i n g Hauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g Chose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ Ne i the r good nor bad Sans rdponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

i

I

60 -[- 58 6 1 7

26 I 27

-' -1983

63 5

' 24 8

100

5427

1983 i 1984- i -1984

I I

I I

62 I 63 I 65 7 1 4 1 4

22 I 25 I 26

5440 1 5393 I 5508

1985 I I

I . I 65 I I 6 1 I

I I 22 I I

.l. ..

I I I I

A 62

13

100

13484


... . 9 8 9 7 9 7 8 7 -

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

8922 9253 9550 9150 8627 9210 9044 8936 _ - . h

.. . .

I Sans r€ponse/No r e p l y I 8

I 100

11676 lyta1

Bonne chose/Good t h i n g Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g Chose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ N e i t h e r good n o r bad Sans r¿ponse/No r e p l y

l l o t a l

7 8 8 7 5 7

100 100 100 100 100 100

9689 9790 9725 9746 9909 9936 L

I"

COMMUNAUTE/COMMUNITY ( i I 1973 I 1974 I 1974 I 1975 I 1975 I 1976 I 1976 I 1977 I 1977 I

I X I I V - v I x- X I I v - V I I X I v - V I I X I I I V - v I x- X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I x

I I I I I - I I I I 56 I 59 I 60 I 59 I 63 I 53 I 55 I 57 I 56 I

- COMMUNAUTE/COMMUNITY - ._ I I

I r.--- . - -I-- - - - I I

I i 1978 1 1978

-. . . . .

i V E y I I x;1 I I - I

i Bonne chose/Good t h i n g i 53 i 60 I Mauvaise chose/Bad t h i n g I 13 I 10 IChose n i bonne n i mauvaise/ .

--

I Sans r6ponse/No r e p l y

I ( N e i t h e r good n o r bad I 2 4 1

I 1979 I 1979

i

I

59 I 54 12 I 14

I 1979 i 1980

- - i 58 I 55 12 I 15

I

9021 8882

1980 i 1981 i 1981 I x- X I I I V I x- X I

X I X I x I I I

I I I 53 I 50 I 53 I 16 I 17 I 14 I

23 I 25 I 26 I

9001 9898 9911

A 63

TABLEAU 7 / TABLE 7

100 100 100 100

1505 1507 1000 1006

L'ATTITUDE E N CA'S D'ABANDON 'DU'MARCHE COMMUN / ATTITUDE I F THE COMMON MARKET HAD BEEN SCRAPPED

100 100 100

949 973 1210

De 1971 à 1973 : S i l ' o n vous annonça i t demain que l e Marché commun e s t abandonné. .. En 1974 e t mai 1975 : S i l ' o l i vous annonça i t demain que ( v o t r e pays) q u i t t e l a Communauté européenne (Marché commun) .... A p a r t i r de novembre 1975 : S i l ' o n vous annonça i t demain que l a Communauté européenne (Marché commun) e s t abandonnée. ../From 1971 t o 1973 : - I f you were t o be t o l d tomorrow t h a t t h e Common Market had been scrapped. ..In 1974 and May 1975 : I f you u e r e t o be t o l d tomorrow t h a t ( you r c o u n t r y ) was l e a v i n g t h e Comon market ... ks f r om November 1975 : I 1 you uere t o be t o l d tomorrow t h a t t h e Common Market had been scrapped.. .

I I I I I

BELGIQUE / BELGIE

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1971 I 1973 I 1974 I 1974 I 1975 I 1975 I 1977 I 1981 I 1981 I 1982 I

Eprouvera ient /Would be i i i - De grands r e g r e t s / I I .. .. . . . .l.. . , .

Very s o r r y I 25 I 39 I 48

I n d i f f e r e n t I 53 I 44 I 30 - De l ' i n d i f f é r e n c e / -1 . . I . {

- Un v i f soulagement/ I I I R e l i e v e d .. .-. - I - . . - 4..\ -.3-.t _ _ _ . 2

Sans réponse lNo r e p l y I 18 I 14 I 20 I I I

T o t a l I 100 I 100 I 100

N

x - X I %

v-VI I x I x-XI I IV I x-XI IIII-IV~ r w , 1 % I % I % I % I % I

I I I I I I

I I

Eprouvera ient /Would be - De grands r e g r e t s /

- De l ' i n d i f f é r e n c e /

- Un v i f soulagement/

Sans réponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

Very s o r r y

I n d i f f e r e n t

R e l i e v e d

i BELGIQUE / BELGIE I I I I I I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984

I 26 I ---38 .I ----.a6 I 31 I I I I I - W--I - - 38--1 41 I 53

I I I I I 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 i 20 i 21 i 19 i

I I 1984 I 1985 I

I I I I I I I I

5 1 2 1 10 I 11 1

34 I -35-1.

51 I 52 I

A 64


100 100

1199 1168

I I I I I I l IEprouveraient/Would be I- De grands r e g r e t s / I Very s o r r y I- De l'indifferente/ I I n d i f f e r e n t I- Un v i f sou lage ien t / I Rel ieved I Sans réponselNo r e p l y I

100 100

1100 1073

I T o t a l

I N 100

1023

DANMARK

100 100 100 100 100

992 1006 1009 1211 995

I I I I 1 I I I I

100 100

1027 1000

1973 i 1974 I 1974 i 1975 i 1975 i 1977 i 1981 i 1981 i 1982 i 1982 i

100 100

996 990

I X i IV- v i x - X I i v - V I i x i x - X I i I V i x - X I i I I I - I V i x i % I % I % I % I % I % I X I % I % I % I '

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I I I I I I I I I I

30 I 27 I 27 I 33 I 33 I 30 I 25 I 25 I 27 I 24 I

I I I I I I I I Eprouveraient/Would be I- De grands r e g r e t s / I Very s o r r y I- De l ' i n d i f f é r e n c e / I I n d i f f e r e n t I- Un v i f soulagement/ I Re l ieved I Sans réponse/No r e p l y

I T o t a l

I N

. - - DANMARK i I I I I I I I I I t

1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 1 1985 I I I I I I -%%-

I I

19 I I

32 I I

30 I

-Kr-

I I X I

I % I

I % I % I

I I I I I I I I I I I I i i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I1

A 65

I 12 I - 1 5

I 2000 1957

I 100 . -130


- 14 I 12 I 13 12 I 17 I 19 14 I 16 I 100 ~ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ;

1060 1042 1039 1002 999 1004 962 1328

i i DEUT SCHLAND ! I I I I I I Eprouveraient/Would .be I- De grands regrets/ I Very sorry I- De ltindiff6rence/ I Indifferent . I - Un vif souiige;eni/ I Relieved I Sans rlponse/No reply I Total

I I I -- I I I I I I I I t I 1971 I 1973 I 1974 I 1974 I 1975 I 1975 I 1977 I 1981 I 1981 I 1982 I i VII i IX i IV-v i x-XI i v-VI i x i x-XI i IV i x-XI iIII-IVl I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I '

i i i i I I I

i i I I I I I

i I

i i i I I . I I 52 I . 57 I 53. I 55 I 55 I 53 I 53 I 42 I 51 I 51 I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I .I 29 I 24 I 28 I 27 I 27 I 31 I 25 I 31 I 30 I 27 I

.. .

- .- . . ~ ...

I I I i i DEUTSCHLAND i

I 1982 I 1983 I 1983

Eprouveraient/Would be I i i - De grands regrets/ I I I - De lIindiffirence/ I I I - Un vif soulagement/ I I --- ---I - Sans r6ponse/No reply

Very sorry I 45 I 54 I 45-

Indifferent I 30 1- 27 1 - 32

Relieved I 1 0 1 4 1 5

Total

N I 1012 1.058

1984 I 1984 I 1985 III-IV I x-XI I III-IV

% l % l % I I I I I .I

45 I 49 I 49

- 3 2 I 34 I 32 - - I I

4 1 4 1 5

992 1053 1007

I . I I I

% I I

X I I

% I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I

%


I 100 - 100 100 100 100 100 100

l - *ooo 1000 1199 - IU00 1000 1000 1000

I I I ELLAS I

I I

- _._ _. . -

100 100

1000 1000

i I I I I I Eprouveraient/Would be I- De grands regrets/ I Very sorry I - De 1 I indif firence/ I Indifferent I- Un vif soulagement/ I Relieved I Sans réponselNo reply I Total

15

. - IN

13 i 14 i 11 i 11 '

i I I I 1 I I I I I I I i 1981 i 1981 i 1982 i 1982 i 1983 i 1983 i 1984 i 1984 i 1985 i i i IV i x-XI j III-IV i x i III-IV i x j III-IV i x-XI i III-IV i 1 x 1 X I X I X I X I % I X I X I X I x I I I I I I I I I I I

30

43

18

I I I

17 I 22

49 I 50

17 I 13

I I

I

27 I 29

45 I 45

15 I -12

I I I I I

35 I 25 I 26

I 43 I 49 I 46 I I . u I... 15. I. . 15

I I 32 I I

I I 40 I I

I I ' . 1 4 1 I

- -

._ I. .. ,

A 67

11

100


.- 14

100

I r I FRANCE , ! I

I

(Sans rdponse/No reply I 10 13 11 14 8 8

I 100 100 100 100 100 100

939 1011 1000 1008 1006 1017

I- I 1971

I,

Eprouveraient/Would be I - De grands regrets/ I

Very sorry I 31 - De ltindiffCrence/ I Indifferent I 52 - Un vif soulageient/ I Relieved I 5

Sans rCponse/No reply I 12

Total

I

- - - I I I I 1973 I 1974 I 1974 I 1975 I 1975 I 1977 I 1981


I I I I I I

I I I I I I

42 I 56 I 50 I 56 I 50 I 45 I 34

43 I 30 I 33 I 31 I 37 I 39 I 44

2 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 6 1 8

9 1 13 1 11 1 13 1 10 1 10 1 14

100 100 100 100 100 100 100

2227 1308 1237 1156 1276 1149 991

. .

1981 i 1982 x-XI iIII-IV

X I 5;

I T I

I I I I l I

t

i , FRANCE

I I

A 68

ISans rdponse/No reply I 16 I 7 I . 4

I 100 100- 100 ~ 1 1999 1000 1000 I:""' _ _ - - - - -

... . TABLEAU 7 (suite) / TABLE 7 (continued)

~ 3 I - 5-1- -5 7 14 I 11 i: . lOQ Ja . -100 100 100- 100 100 _ _ 1000 998 997 1005 985 1181 1007

b

IRELAND

100 I 100

987 1002

100 100 100 I 1000 1008 1009

I I I I I I Eprouveraient/Would be I- De grands regrets/ I Very sorry I- De 1'indiffCrencel I Indifferent I - Un vif soulagement/ I Relieved I Sans r€ponse/No reply I Tot al

__ -- - --_ . --- ----- 1 IRELAND I

I I 1 I T

X I X I X I X I X I X I X I % I X I X I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I

33 I 30 I 33 I 31 I 37 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I

49 I 42 I 43 I 46 I 42 I I I I I l I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I

_._ - i

1983 I 1983 f 1984 I 1984 1 1985 I I I I I I III- IV^ x I III-IV I x-XI I III-IV I

7 1 2 0 1 161 141 141

A 69

I 24 14 I 14 10 10

I 2000 1909 1030 1021 1043

I 100 100 100 100 100

.. . TABLEAU 7 (suite) / TABLE 7 (continued)

14 I 10 7 1 111 1 3 1

100 100 100 100 , 100 1 1110 1155 1183 1070 1301

I I ITALIA I

l

lEprouveraient/Would be 1- De grands regrets/ 1. Very sorry I- De l'indiffirence/ I Indifferent I- Un vif soulageient/ 1 Relieved I Sans riponse/No reply

i i ITALIA i

I Total I N

I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1971 I 1973 I 1974 I 1974 I 1975 I 1975 I 1977 I 1981 I 1981 I 1982 I ,I VII I IX I IV-v I x-XI I v-VI I x I x-XI I IV I x-XI IIII- IV^ 1 x 1 X I % . I % I % I % I % I % I % I % I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I

I I i

I Eprouveraient/Would be 1 - De grands regrets/ '1 Very sorry 1- De l'indiff€rence/ I Indifferent I- Un vif soulagement/ I Relieved I Sans rt?ponse/No reply llotal

- 1982 X x

42

43

3 12

100

1025

- -

1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 III-IV I x I III-IV I x-XI

% l % l % l % I I I I I I

I I I I I I

45 I 43 I ' 4 1 I 40

43 I 40 I 41 I 48

2 1 5 1 3 1 3

1031 1033 1060 1097

I I I I I - I '

1985 I I I I I I

% [ I

% I I

% I III-IV I I

% I % I I I I I I I I I I I

42 I I I I I I I I I I

46 I I I I I I I I I I

2 1 I I I I

A 70


i I Eprouveraient/Would be I- De grands regrets/ I Very sorry I- De l'indifférence/ I Indifferent: I- Un vif soilage'ib;lt/ . I Relieved I Sans r(ponse/No reply

Í:""l

LUXEMBOURG

1971 VII

% -

36

42

6 16

1 O0 7

302

1973 i 1974

51 I 73

35 I 17 I I

3 1 3 3-$

1974 i 1975 x-XI i v-VI

% I % i I

70 I . 58 I

I 16 I 22

2 1 7 * 1975 i 1977

i I

I

I

60 I 64

24 I 25 * 1981 i 1981

i I

I

I

59 I 60

33 I 31

4-4

1982 I

399

LUXEMBOURG

Eprouveraient/Would be - De grands re.grets/

- De l'indifférence/

- Un vif soulagement/

Sans réponse/No reply

Very sorry

Indifferent '

Relieved

I 1982 I 1983 I 1983 I 1984 I 1984 i x i III-IV I x i III-IV I x-XI 1 % 1 % I % I % I %

i I

i I I 54 I 57 I I

l I I 4 1 3 I 6 1 8

I 36 I 32

I I

i I

i I I I

I I

60 I 64 I 62

28 I 26 I 30

7 1 2 1 5 5 1 7 1 3

Total 1 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I 100

N I 300 I 300 I 304 I 300 I 299

I I I I 1985 I I I I

4 1 I I I 100 I I I I 300

I I I I

1

A 71

15 I 13

100 100

1198. 1464

I ~ (Eprouveraient/Would be

1- De grands regrets/ I Very sorry I- D e l'indiff6rencel I Indifferent I - Un vif soulagement/ I Relieved I Sans rlponse/No reply

(Total

22 I 14 I 20 I 20 8 1 8 1 1 8 1 10

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1000 1012 1093 1006 943 1058 1011 1228


/ , ..

NEDERLAND i i

I I I I I I I I I 1971 i 1973 i 1974 i 1974 i 1975 i 1975 i 1977 i 1981 i 1981 i 1982 i VII I IX I IV-v I x-XI I v-VI I x I x-XI I IV 1 x-XI IIII- IV^

% I % I X I % I % I X I X I % I % I X I I I I I I I I I I I

i i NEDER LAND i i 1 7 I x I III-IV I x 1 x 1 % I %

I 1982 I 1983 I 1983

Eprouveraient/Would be ,I I I - D e grands regrets/ I I I - D e l'indifflrence/ I I I

- Un vif soulagement/ I I I

Very sorry I 50 I 56 I 54

Indifferent I 34 I 31 I 32

Relieved I 4 1 3 1 4 lans rkponse/No reply 1 1 li: 1 li: Total

1056 998 1050

1984 I 1984 I 1985 IIi-IV I x;1 I IIi-IV

I I I I

I I 51 I 48 I 49

38 I 41 I 38 I I

2 1 2 1

- I I ' I

I % I

I % I % I

I I I I I I

%

I I I I I I

I I I I I. I I I

A 72


6 1 141 9 1 12 9 10 I 9 I 10

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1028 924 1013 873 885 998 818 1933

I UNITEO KINGOOH

I 1972 i 1973 I 1973 I 1973 I 1973 I 1973 I 1973 I 1973 I 1973 I 1973

9 I 11 t , 100 100

902 906

Eprouveraient/Would be - Oe grands r e g r e t s /

- De l ' i n d i f f & e n c e /



T o t a l

N

Very s o r r y


Re l ieved

100 100 100 100 100

Eprouveraient/Would be - Oe grands r e g r e t s /

- Oe l I i n d i f f h r e n c e /


Sans rCponse/No r e p l y

Very s o r r y


Re 1 i eved

I T o t a l

1055

I U N I T E O KINGOOH I

1007 1031 985 . 908

- 1974 1-11

19

26

48 7

100

1054

- -

1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 I I I - I V I I V I I V - v I v I V I I

i I

27 I I

'. 23' I I

i I

24 I I

21 I I

i I

24 I I

i I

I

I

25 I 28

33 I 21

43 i 43 i 40 i 44 i 44

1974 I 1974 V I I I I x

i I

I

I

24 I 26

22 I 24

47 I 38

I I I I

31 I 24 I i i

22 I 24 I I I

38 I 40 !

l Eprouveraient/Would be - De grands r e g r e t s /

- Oe l l i n d i f f 6 r e n c e /


Sans rQponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

Very s o r r y


Re l ieved

1975 v - V I

41

27

23 9

1 O0

1328

- - -

UNITEO KINGOOM

1975 1976 1976 1976 1976 x I I I II I V I I I I X (2) I (1) I (1) I (1) I (1)

X I X I X I X I x I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

40 I 37 I 34 I 28 I 25

28 I 30 I 30 I 30 I 30

26 I 24 I 28 I 35 I 34

1977 1977 1977 1979 V I I x I x - X I I x

i I I I

I I I I

B I 101

26 I 28 I 24 I 30.1

42 I 32 I

16

28

50 6

A 73

ISans r6ponse/No reply i 7

Total I 100

N 948


8 7 6 5 1 4 4 1 6 1 6 1 41,

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

943 1015 1046 921 923 1369 972 1395 1419

Eprouveraient/Would be - D e grands regrets/ - De 11indiff6rence/

Very sorry

Indifferent Un vif soulageient/ Relieved

% Eprouveraient/Would be I

UNITED KINGDOU

(1) I (1) I (1) I ( 1 ) I (1) I (1) I ( 2 ) I (1) I ( 2 ) I ( 2 ) I % i % I ' % I % I % I % I % I % I % I % 1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

16 I 14 I 17 I 16 I 18 I 18 I 21 I 16 I 21 I 23 I 26 I 27 I 25 I 25 I 30 I 29 I 29 I 28 I 34 I 33 I

51 I 51 I 51 I 53 I 47 I 49 I 46 I 50 I 39 I 40 I

% % % x % % % % % I (1) (2) (1) I 12) (1) 1 (1) I (2 ) I (1) I ( 2 ) 1 (1 ) -

Sans réponse/No reply I 4

N I 977

Total I 100

. I I I I I I

I I I

4 1 4 1 5 1

19 I 24 I 20 I

37 I 41 I 36 .I

40 I 31 I 39 I 5 1 5 1 5 6 7 6

100 100. 100 100 100 100

1335 950 1348 918 910 1277

1984

I Eprouveraient/Would be I- De grands regrets/ I Very sorry I- De 11indiff6rence/ I Indifferent I - Un vif soulagerent/ I Relieved I Sans rhponse/No reply

I Total

1985 1985

I N

(2 ) x

I x

I %

(1) (2 ) I x % t x x x %

31 I 36 I 33 I I I I I I I l 4 1 6 1 4 1

1405 I 930 I 1443 I (1) et (2 ) Voir page A 74. / (1) and ( 2 ) See pa9e.A 74.

A 74

13

100

5691


12

100

5596

i I I I I

. I I I I I I I l I I

! T o t a l I 100 100

N 8670 9153

100

5723

EURO 6

N

1

- 5352

1974 i 1975 x - X I i v - V I

X I X i i I I

56 I . 53

27 I 31

4 1 4

61 14

I 1975 I 1977

-+t+ I I I

49 I 50

35 I 33 i

3 1 5

I 1981 I 1981

I I I I

42 I 44

38 I 39

1982 I I I - I \

x

46

36

4 14

100 - 6665 -

- i

I i I

- . EURO 6

I I I

I 1983 I 1983

I I

, I I

47 I 44

37 1 37

I 1984 I 1984

I I k - I V x;1

i I I 4 41 4

43 I 44

37 I 42

16 I 10

I 1985 I

- t Ï I I

46 I I

39 1 I

-ll+ I I I

X I % I

(1) S o c i a l Surveys (Ga l lup P o l l ) . Popu la t ion o f 18 years and more. Only Great B r i t a i n . S l i g h t d i f fe rence i n t h e word ing o f the ques t ion : i n 1972 : very sorry , i n d i f f e r e n t , pleased ; from V/75 : very sorry , i n d i f f e r e n t , r e l i e v e d .

( 2 ) European Omnibus Survey. Popu la t ion o f 15 years and more. Only Great B r i t a i n f rom 1973 t o 1974 U n i t e d Kingdom f rom 1975.

A 75

11

100

9150


11 11

100 100

8936 . 9898

i i COMMUNAUTEICOMMUNITY (1 ) i

9911

Eprouveraient/Yould be - De grands r e g r e t s /

- De l ' i n d i f f i r e n c e /


Sans r(ponse/No r e p l y

T o t a l

N

Very s o r r y


Rel ieved

11676 9689

i I I I . I I I 1 I I I I

11

100

9790

1973 i 1974 i 1974 I X I I V - v I x - X I X I % I x

I I I I

41 I 48 I 49

12 I 13

100 100

9725 9746

i i I I

36 I 27 I 26

10 I 13 I 13 ,w 13484 8922 9253

1975 . v- V I

x

50

30

9 11

100

9550

1981 I 1982 I 1982 I x - X I

x

38

38

12

I I I I - I V 1 m I I I I I 40 I I I I 36 I I I I 12 I

I I I

36 I I

15 I

'38 I

I

I COMMUNAUTE/COMMUN~TY (1 I

I I I I I I I I

Eprouveraient/Would be - De grands r e g r e t s /

- De l ' i n d i f f i r e n c e /



T o t a l

N

Very s o r r y


Rel ieved

,1983 I 1983 I 1984

i I

i i

1984 x - X I

x -

39

42

10 9

100

9909

-

1985 I I x

I I L I V I I % I X I

I I I I

41 I I I I

38 I I I I --#+ i i / /

m . . (1) Y compris l a Grbce 3 p a r t i r d ' a v r i l 1981. / I n c l u d i n g Greece from A p r i l 1981.

Documents

Standard Eurobarometer 23 - Public Opinion in the European …ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/eb/eb23/eb23_en.pdf · 111.3.4. Typological analysis of attitudes