analytical report - european...

Flash Eurobarometer No 189b EU communication and the citizens, Decision Makers

Analytical Report, page 1

Fla

sh

Eu

rob

aro

me

ter

18

9

Th

e G

allu

p O

rga

niz

ati

on

This survey was requested and coordinated by Directorate-General Communication

This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission.

The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

Flash Eurobarometer

EU Communication

and the citizens Decision Makers

Analytical Report

Fieldwork: October 2006

Report: January 2007

European

Commission

Flash Eurobarometer Series #189b

EU Communication

and the citizens

Decision Makers

by

The Gallup Organization Hungary

Survey organised and managed by Directorate-General Communication

This document does not reflect the views

of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it

are solely those of the authors.

THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION HUNGARY



Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4

Main findings ......................................................................................................................................... 6

1. European decision makers and the EU ........................................................................................... 9

1.1. The EU in the life of European decision makers .......................................................................... 9

1.2. Motivations for being informed about the EU ............................................................................. 9

1.2.1 Personal reasons for obtaining information.......................................................................... 10

1.2.2 Professional reasons for obtaining information.................................................................... 18

2. Delivering the EUs message .......................................................................................................... 22

2.1. A communication policy EU initiatives .................................................................................. 23

2.1.1 Training of communication staff .......................................................................................... 24

2.1.2 Upgrading Europe by Satellite (EbS) ................................................................................... 25

2.1.3 Public Opinion Observatory ................................................................................................. 25

2.1.4 Role of Commissioners ........................................................................................................ 26

2.1.5 Cooperation in conveying information ................................................................................ 27

2.2. The role of national governments ............................................................................................... 28

2.3. The EU in domestic policy ......................................................................................................... 32

3. The EU and the media..................................................................................................................... 34

3.1. Quantity of EU information provided by the national media ..................................................... 34

3.2. Cross-border public spheres in Europe ...................................................................................... 35

3.3. EU TV ........................................................................................................................................ 37

3.4. Web-based information channels ............................................................................................... 38

4. Assessment of information received about the EU ....................................................................... 40

4.1. Information received about the EU a general assessment ....................................................... 40

4.2. Information received about the EU personal experience ........................................................ 42

4.2.1 Experience of the quality of information received ............................................................... 43

4.2.2 Media sources used for obtaining information ..................................................................... 45

I. Annex tables ..................................................................................................................................... 47

II. Survey details ................................................................................................................................ 103

III. Survey questionnaire .................................................................................................................. 108


page 4

Introduction

On February 1, 2006, the European Commission adopted the White Paper on a European

Communication Policy1 with the aim of strengthening the EUs emphasis on communication work and

proposing a new, more citizen-centred and decentralised approach to communication. According to the

White Paper, communication should become a policy in its own right; it should be based on a dialogue

between citizens and policy-makers as well as among citizens themselves. These debates should

eventually result in development of a European Public Sphere, where Europeans could address issues

of common interest in parallel to ongoing discussions in the Member States. Thus citizens would gain

stronger influence on the decision-making process at the EU level.

The particular role of partnerships with key players permeates all the chapters of the White Paper. EU

institutions, national- regional- and local authorities in the Member States as well as civil society and

other entities have been asked to support these efforts and to contribute their ideas on how best to

work together to enhance public debate in Europe.

A six-month long public consultation, during which individuals and institutions were able to comment

on the main ideas put forward in the White Paper, was concluded on September 30, 2006:

To ensure the right to information and freedom of expression for all EU citizens, the White Paper proposes developing a European Charter or Code of Conduct on Communication to be subscribed to on a voluntary basis by the EU and by national institutions.

It proposes to "empower citizens", by providing tools and instruments that will: a) improve civic education (e.g. a network of teachers, digitally connected European libraries), b) connect

people with each other (e.g. physical and virtual meeting places) and c) strengthen the relationship between citizens and institutions (e.g., minimum standards for consultation);

The White Paper aims to involve the media more effectively in communicating Europe and focuses on exploiting the information potential of new technologies such as the Internet. In

addition, the White Paper envisages upgrading Europe by Satellite to provide the media

with more and better material as well as developing training programmes in public communication for officials from EU- and national institutions.

To better anticipate and understand trends in public opinion by pooling resources and exchanging best practices, the White Paper proposes, as a possibility, to set-up a network of

national experts in public opinion research and an independent Observatory for European Public Opinion;

Lastly, the White Paper once again underlines the need to "do the job together" via a partnership involving all the key actors: EU institutions, Member States, regional- and local- level authorities, political parties and civil society organisations.

The current wave of Flash Eurobarometer tested perceptions regarding some of the major initiatives

and underlying concepts of the White Paper. What are the chances of dialogue between European

Institutions and the citizens of the Union? How could the Commission facilitate the development of

this dialogue? The survey had two components: Eurobarometer asked a sample of European citizens

(Flash 189a) as well as European decision-makers (Flash 189b) for their opinion on the EUs

communication policy. The current report covers the results of the decision makers survey.

The surveys fieldwork was carried out between the 11th and 20

th October, 2006. Over 2,500 randomly

selected decision makers were interviewed in the 25 Member States of the EU.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/communication_white_paper/doc/white_paper_en.pdf



The survey focussed on five important groups of decision makers in EU countries:

CEOs of large enterprises (N=20)

Chief editors in national media (N=20)

Members of national assemblies / national parliaments (N=20)

High ranking officials in state administrations (N=20)

Leaders of trade unions and professional associations (N=20)

National samples include respondents from each segment in equal numbers (approximately 20 from

each, overall 100 in every country surveyed). Interviews were predominantly carried out by telephone.

On request, we offered alternative interviewing methods, typically face to face interviews.

To correct sampling disparities, weighting of the results was applied to accurately reflect the actual

size of each Member State of the EU. Additional details on survey methodology are included in the

Annex to this report.


page 6

Main findings

European decision makers and the EU

More than half (54%) of top-level European decision makers report that the EU is ubiquitous in their professional life. However, about one in seven decision makers in

the EU say that their work is not impacted by EU issues at all (14%).

National elite groups in the EU show a high level of personal and professional interest in EU issues. Overall, a mere 2% of European decision makers say that being

informed on EU matters is not important to them.

Most decision makers are interested in pursuing information about the EU privately, because of the benefits associated with the EU. The desire to contribute (to the

Union) is a somewhat less important reason for seeking information. A personal

desire to keep up with EU developments is the most important motive for obtaining

information.

The prime professional reasons for obtaining EU information are universally strong across Europe: for 77% of top decision makers, being informed about the EU is

important professionally because of the need to adapt to European regulations,

decisions, and policies. 72% also agree that remaining up-to-date on European

matters is important for being prepared to work with partners form other EU

countries.

Success in business competition (a motive for 54%) is relatively the most prominent motivation for seeking out EU information for decision makers in France,

Denmark, and Lithuania. Compared to other countries, it is the least important in

Hungary, Latvia, Slovakia and Germany. On the other hand, opportunities to

cooperate (selected by 60% of EU decision makers) motivate an unusually high

number of decision makers in Slovakia, Cyprus, Germany and the UK, while this

reason is least often mentioned in France, Denmark and Finland.

Delivering the EUs message

The most essential elements of a democratic institutions communication principles including the right to fair information, wide-ranging accessibility, transparent

decision-making, and the possibility to voice opinions are beyond debate.

Decision makers are most supportive of the initiative that aims to train a more professional staff to provide communication services, from the central institutions

down to the regions. 70% of those interviewed in the EU think that this would help

enhance the EUs ability to communicate.

Upgrading Europe by Satellite (EbS) to better provide broadcasters with content is an initiative supported by over half (56%) of top-level decision makers across the

EU, and opposed by 22%. The idea of setting up a public observatory for European

public opinion gained somewhat lower approval, but it is still supported by a majority

of decision makers (53%).

Commissioners have a prominent role to help giving Europe a human face especially in their home countries thereby bringing the EU closer to its citizens.

Decision makers in the various Member States have very different opinions on this

question. On average, 35% would like to see their Commissioners remain primarily

in Brussels, while 53% would prefer to have them available domestically on a more

regular basis.



While all decision makers agree that a shared responsibility involving national actors in disseminating information and facilitating dialogue can enhance the EUs

ability to communicate, (only 6% at the EU-25 level say it would not be useful),

many decision makers believe that such cooperation is only useful on a limited

variety of topics (42%). The more directly the respondents are involved in EU

problems in their work, the more likely they are to believe that cooperation with

national actors is useful under all circumstances; this opinion is shared by 48% of all

decision makers interviewed.

In 23 Member States, the plurality of top-level decision makers hold the national government responsible for informing citizens on what the EU is doing and how this

affects their daily life.

Respondents in the EU-15 are more likely to believe that the Commission and the European Parliament are responsible for informing citizens on all things EU-related

than are decision makers in the EU-10, who hold their national government more

responsible.

The plurality of European decision makers and the majority of those from the EU-10 believe that governments are also primarily responsible for taking into account

the citizens opinions on EU issues. Decision makers are twice as likely to believe

that such wishes should be directed towards their national government (40%) rather

than to the European Parliament (21%) or even their national parliament (19%). Only

10% express the view that such opinions should be primarily taken into account by

the Commission.

Decision makers in the Member States dominantly perceive that their governments do not provide enough information to citizens. They are clearly unhappy with the

performance of their governments regarding EU communication (only 29% believe

that their government provides sufficient information, while 65% feel that it does not)

and this is the dominant opinion even within the ranks of the governments: 39% of

high officials regard their governments performance as satisfactory, while 51% do

not.

Exactly two-thirds of the EUs decision makers consider that EU institutions are not more open, accessible and responsive than their national institutions while only 17%

hold the opposite opinion.

Elite groups interviewed by this survey mostly believe that EU affairs belong to their countrys domestic policy (63%) rather than to the Member States foreign office

(24%). In line with this feeling, high-ranking decision makers are convinced that

their national parliaments should regularly discuss matters related to the EUs future

(81% agree against 14% insisting that their parliament should focus on national

issues only).

The EU and the media

European decision makers are frustrated that citizens are not provided with sufficient information about the EU. 72% agree that the national media provides too little

EU-related information. Less than a quarter of European decision makers think that

people in their country are sufficiently well-informed. Hardly any EU decision

makers (2%) feel that their citizens are over-supplied with such information.

European decision makers who watch foreign television can broaden their vision by obtaining information and commentary from different cultural and political

perspectives. In the EU-25 zone, 37% of top decision makers say they watch TV

channels from other European countries.


page 8

A very significant majority (77%) of European decision makers say that they would watch an EU-operated public TV channel in their national language, if it existed.

The Internet is quickly becoming a primary source of information, especially for those in high-level jobs and for the well-educated. Accordingly, only 19% of EU

decision makers do not use the Internet to obtain information about EU matters.

Without talking about actual usage or its intensity, 34% of decision makers in the EU

(but only 23% in the EU-10) claimed that their main web-based source for EU

information was the Europa website.

Assessment of information received about the EU

Almost three-quarters of high-ranking decision makers in the Member States consider the information they receive on the EU to be useful (73%), considerably

less, about two-thirds, find it interesting (64%), and only about half of them regard it

as understandable (49%).

Overall, Cypriot decision makers are the most satisfied with the EU-related information received; they scored especially high on how interesting and useful they

found this information to be, but were less enthusiastic about its clarity. This opinion

is also shared by Maltese respondents, ranking second in their level of satisfaction.

Irish decision makers rank third; they are mostly happy about the usefulness of the

information. On the other hand, Italian decision makers are the least happy with

what they receive (they find it to be neither useful nor understandable), along with

Danish decision makers (who lament the limited usefulness of the information), and

those from the UK (who are only moderately satisfied with all aspects of the data

they receive).

General assessments are, of course, indicative of the beliefs held by elite groups in the various Member States, but equally important are the decision makers direct

experiences regarding the provision of information impacting EU decisions or

policies. Close to two-thirds (61%) can recall a specific decision taken at the EU

level that directly affected their professional activity. Most respondents reported

they were sufficiently informed about this decision, this was particularly true in the

EU-10 Member States (76%), but also at the EU-25 level (65%).

Decision makers primarily rely on informal or internal channels to obtain information about EU decisions that directly affect them. In this respect, 48% (in the EU-25)

chose other sources when asked which media outlet provided them with the

information related to decisions that had an impact on their professional activity. Of

the various public media, the written press is said to be the most relevant (22%),

closely followed by Internet-based information (19%). Electronic (audio-visual)

media is only chosen by 10% as the primary source of information regarding specific

EU decisions that impact their job.



1. European decision makers and the EU

The report analyses respondents opinions and attitudes regarding the EUs communication

performance and possible ideas for improving it. The first chapter reports on the opinions of

influential European decision makers2 regarding how deeply the European Union is embedded in their

lives.

1.1. The EU in the life of European decision makers

We find greater variations in opinion in how much respondents feel that the EU is a part of their daily

professional life.

75 72 69 6761 60 60 59 59 59 58 58 55 54 54 52 51 48 48 47 47 45 45 42

38 35 35

2226 27

30 3339 40 40 41 40 41 42

43 45 44 4548 48

52 52 53 5356 55 56

62 6065

79

DE

DK

AT

PT

SK

EL

EE

CY

LT

LU

MT

PL FI

EU

10

EU

25

EU

15 IT CZ

ES

NL IE HU

LV

UK

BE SI

FR

SE

% regularly + on a daily basis

% sometimes + almost never

The EU in the daily activity of European leaders

D3. Does your job require you dealing with European Union issues ...?% by country

More than half (54%) of top-level European decision makers report that the EU is ubiquitous in their

professional lives. 19% deal with EU issues on a daily basis, and another 35% say that their job

requires them to deal with EU matters regularly. 30% report that they have to deal with EU issues

only sometimes, and about 1 in 7 decision makers say that their work does not concern European

Union issues at all (14%). Overall, for 44% of respondents, the EU does not seem to be a regular,

direct presence in their professional life.

Only a minority of corporate decision-makers say that they have to deal with EU matters daily or

regularly (36%), and a quarter of them (23%) say that their work does not involve EU-related issues

at all. Overall, two thirds of executives in industry report that the EU has very little effect on their

professional activity. In the other sample groups, the majority acknowledge the importance of EU

issues for their professional life. This is most markedly so for members of parliament (71% say that

EU issues play a great role in their work, while 28% say that they do not) and high-ranking state

officials (60% report that their jobs regularly require them to deal with EU issues, while 40% say the

opposite). In national media, 58% of high-ranking decision makers believe that EU matters have a

regular impact on their work. A very slim majority of trade association and professional association

decision makers state that EU issues are important in their daily work.

1.2. Motivations for being informed about the EU

National elites in the EU show a high level of personal and professional interest in EU issues, as the

graph below demonstrates. Overall, a mere 2% of European decision makers say that being informed

on EU matters is not important to them.

2 See the five decision makers categories surveyed in Introduction.


page 10

9 81 0

7 5 5 5 4 2 39

28 4

133

8 9 9 918

29

145

28

23

13 13

27

13

2832

19 23

15

2125

2121

24

1919

9

40

2723 37

108

18

5568

7886 87

65

81

67 61

76 7480

68 72 69 7161

7570

76

48

5955 55

76 72 69 62

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 34 4 4 4 5 7

916

1814

11720 1

0%

2 0%

4 0%

6 0%

8 0%

1 00%

ES

EL FI

MT

PT IT AT IE LT SI

DE

HU

EU

15 SK

EU

25

EU

10 UK

PL

DK

FR

LV

CZ

NL

EE

LU

BE

CY

SE

Yes, mostly for personal reasons Yes, mostly for professional reasons Yes, for both reasons No DK/NA

Important to be informed about European politics and affairs

Q2. Is it important for you to be informed about European politics and affairs?% by country

Most of those interviewed are universally interested in EU matters. 69% say that they are motivated,

personally as well as professionally, to be informed about EU affairs. 20% of top-level decision

makers say that they are interested in EU matters only professionally, while 8% say that they are

interested only personally. But barely anyone reports to be not interested at all. The ratio of those who

are uninterested in EU matters is the highest in Sweden, (11%), followed by Cyprus and Belgium (7%-

7%). We found the highest number of those who are interested for mostly personal reasons in the

Netherlands (18%). On the other end, Latvian decision makers were the most likely to claim that they

are interested in EU affairs only professionally (40%), closely followed by Estonians (37%).

In each group of decision makers, regardless of age, gender and field of activity, the dominant

response to this question was that they are interested in EU affairs both personally and professionally.

The group that was least likely to be interested in EU affairs for both personal and professional

reasons was the business elite: 29% of them report that they are professionally interested, and 11% say

they are interested only personally. However, even in this group, the majority cite both personal and

professional reasons (55%).

In subsequent questions, Flash Eurobarometer clarifies respondents personal and professional

motivations for obtaining information about the EU.

1.2.1 Personal reasons for obtaining information

Being well informed is important for decision makers. Most respondents are interested in pursuing

information about the EU privately because of what they can get from the EU. The desire to

contribute is a somewhat less important reason for seeking information3.

3 Please note that the graphs presented on individual personal and professional motivations for being informed

reflect the results among all decision makers, while those in the Annex present those who responded that they

have a personal interest in EU-related information.



Personal motives for being informed about the EU

69

69

69

67

65

61

60

54

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

To be able to check what actual EU policies are in certain

areas

To better know what EU Institutions do for citizens

To know about Europes role in the world

To better know my rights or possibilities as a European

citizen

To feel concerned by what is going on in the other

countries of Europe

To feel involved in the building of Europe / feel European

Have all the information to take part in European

debates, elections, etc

To be able to have some influence over the development

of European co-operation

Q3a. You mentioned personal reasons for being informed about European politics. Please tell for each of them if you think it is an important reason for you or not?

% important, EU25

Most respondents agreed that being informed about the European politics is personally important to

them in order to remain up-to-date (check what actual EU policies are), to better know what EU

institutions do for citizens, and to know about Europes role in the world. Each of these concerns

motivates 69% of respondents to obtain information. Exactly two thirds (67%) seek information about

the EU to better know [their] rights and possibilities as European citizen[s]. Almost as many top-

level decision makers say that being informed about the EU is important because they feel concerned

by what is going on in other countries of Europe (65%). 6 out of 10 decision makers seek out

information because they want to feel involved in the building of Europe and to feel European

(61%) as well as to be properly informed to take part in European debates, elections (60%). A little

over half of decision makers agree that their personal search for information is driven by a wish to be

able to have some influence on the development of European cooperation (54%).

Looking at each of the possible motivations, we find that when comparing countries, the same

countries are often at the top and at the bottom for all of the motivations. If we rank the Member States

according to how important their national elites regard each motivation for obtaining information on

EU matters, France, Luxembourg or Cyprus often appear on the top, while Latvia, Estonia are often

found at the bottom.

Looking at the rankings separately for each motive, we see some important patterns in how top-level

decision makers in each country personally relate to EU information. The need for factual information

is an important reason for obtaining information, especially in Portugal (84% of respondents

mentioned this as a motive), Malta (82%), Luxembourg (81%) and France (80%). In Latvia and

Estonia, respondents who considered it important to be up-to-date on EU policy affairs were in a slight

minority (49% and 46%, respectively) and only a slim majority in the Czech Republic and Sweden felt

that being current on EU policies was important (both 55%).


page 12

82 81 80 77 77 75 73 73 71 70 70 70 69 68 67 67 65 64 63 63 62 60 59 55 5549 46

84

PT

MT

LU

FR

AT

HU

BE

DE

FI

SI

DK

EU

15 PL

EU

25

IT

EL

EU

10 IE

SK

NL

UK

LT

ES

CY

SE

CZ

LV

EE

Motivated to receive information in order tobe able to check what actual EU policies are in certain areas


e. To be able to check what actual EU policies are in certain areas. % by country, projected to the whole population

Respondents in France, (84%), Malta, Austria, (both 83%) and Belgium (82%) were the most likely to

regard it important personally to know what EU institutions do for them as citizens. Most Latvian

decision makers (who are more likely to be professionally interested in EU affairs) do not regard this

motive to be important (39%), and only about half of Danish and Estonian decision makers do.

83 83 82 79 78 77 77 75 72 72 72 70 69 69 69 69 67 65 65 64 62 6258 56

51 50

39

84

FR

MT

AT

BE

LU

PT

SI

HU

FI

CY

EL

SK

IT

EU

15

EU

25

PL

IE

EU

10 ES

DE

UK

LT

NL

CZ

SE

EE

DK

LV

Motivated to receive information in order tobetter know what EU Institutions do for citizens


d. To better know what EU Institutions do for citizens.% by country, projected to the whole population

When it comes to acquiring information about the EUs global role, we find a similar pattern as in the

previous question. Decision makers in Malta (84%) and France (83%) are most interested- and

Latvians and Estonians are the least interested in acquiring information for this purpose.

83 81 79 78 77 77 7672 71 70 70 69 69 69 69 68 67 66 65 63 63 60 59 57 55

4640

84

MT

FR

PT

HU

FI

BE

LU

AT

CY

SK

SI

EU

15

EU

25

UK

IE

DE

EL

PL

EU

10 ES

DK

IT

LT

SE

NL

CZ

EE

LV

Motivated to receive information in order toknow about Europes role in the world


h. To know about Europes role in the world % by country, projected to the whole population

Decision makers in Denmark (37%), Estonia, Sweden (both 50%), and Latvia (51%) are the least

likely to seek out information about the rights and possibilities they enjoy as EU citizens. At the other

end, their colleagues in Malta (85%) France and Austria (83%) are the keenest on receiving



information on this topic. Austria stands out on this question with an unusually high number of

respondents mentioning this as an important motivating factor (compared to other possible

motivations).

83 8379 79 79 77

73 72 72 71 69 68 68 67 67 67 67 66 63 6258 57 57

51 50 50

37

85

MT

FR

AT

HU

PT

BE

LU

EL

CY

PL

SI

EU

10 IT

SK

FI

EU

25

ES

EU

15 IE

UK

LT

DE

NL

CZ

LV

EE

SE

DK

Motivated to receive information in order tobetter know my rights or possibilities as a European citizen


c. To better know my rights or possibilities as a European citizen.% by country, projected to the whole population

The next personal motivation for obtaining information about European politics was the desire to

remain up-to-date on developments in other countries. Respondents in Finland (82%), Luxembourg,

and France (both 81%) found this to be an especially important reason for seeking out information.

On the other hand, a relatively lower percentage of the elites in Germany (50%), Slovakia (49%),

Estonia (48%) and Latvia (45%) are motivated by an interest in developments in other countries.

81 8175 75 73 71 70 70 68 67 67 66 65 65 65 65 65 64 63 60 60 60 57

50 49 48 45

82

FI

LU

FR

MT

BE

PT

PL

SI

UK

CY

EL

IT

DK

LT

EU

10

EU

25

EU

15 IE

HU

ES

AT

SE

CZ

NL

DE

SK

EE

LV

Motivated to receive information because theyfeel concerned by what is going on in the other countries of Europe


f. To feel concerned by what is going on in the other countries of Europe% by country, projected to the whole population

The next question asked respondents if involvement in the building of Europe and the desire to feel

European were reasons they want to be informed about European politics. In seven Member States,

only about half or less than half of the top-level decision makers saw this as an important motivating

factor.


page 14

Personal reason:to feel involved in the building of Europe / feel European

Q3a. You mentioned personal reasons for being informed about European politics. Please

tell for each of them if you think it is an important reason for you or not?

a. To feel involved in the building of Europe / feel European

Important,by country

81 7875 73 72

69 67 6764 62 61 61 60 60 59 59 58 57

55 53 51 4945 44 43 43

33

82

0

25

50

7 5

1 00

PT

FR

LU

MT

HU

BE

AT IT PL

SK

EU

10

SI

EU

25 FI

EU

15

ES IE EL

CY

DK

UK

LT

DE

EE

CZ

SE

NL

LV

Important

OK

On average, 61% of decision makers interviewed state that it is important for them to be informed

about EU politics in order to feel European. Portugal (82%), France (81%), and Luxembourg (78%)

had the highest number of respondents who felt that in order to feel European or involved in building

Europe, it is important to be informed about EU politics. At the low end of the scale was Latvia, where

33% of decision makers share this attitude.

A majority of European elites felt that being informed was crucial for being able to participate in

European debates and political events. Overall, 60% of decision makers in EU Member States felt that

this was an important personal reason for remaining up-to-date on European politics.



7974 71

65 63 62 61 60 59 59 59 58 57 54 54 53 52 51 51 50 4940 39

34 32 32 31

80

FR

LU

PT

AT

EL

IT

EU

15

DE

EU

25

FI

BE

IE

ES

UK

SI

MT

PL

DK

HU

SK

CY

EU

10 CZ

NL

SE

LV

EE

LT

Motivated to receive information in order tohave all the information to take part in European debates, elections, etc.


b. Have all the information to take part in European debates, elections, etc.% by country, projected to the whole population

Looking at the last question, we find that in the EU overall, 54% of decision makers want to be

informed on EU politics because it affords them a better chance to influence the development of

European co-operation. Poland stands out here, with an unusually high number of respondents stating

that obtaining information is important because it enables them to shape the development of European

co-operation (66% of the Polish elite agreed with this).

66 6662 62 61 60 60 60 58 58 57 55 54 54 53 53 53 52 51

45 4438 38 35 32 31 31

73

FR

LU

PL

PT

BE

MT

FI

AT

IE

DK

SK

IT

EU

10

EU

25

EU

15 ES

HU

EL

UK

NL

CY

SI

CZ

DE

SE

LT

EE

LV

Motivated to receive information in order tobe able to have some influence over the development of European co-operation


g. To be able to have some influence over the development of European co-operation% by country, projected to the whole population

Comparing the eight different possible motivations, it is clear that most often the same countries are at

the top and at the bottom of the lists on all of them. This means that often the same countries have the

highest ratios of respondents mentioning the given motive as an important reason for seeking out

information. This of course is largely determined by the overall level of personal interest expressed by

decision makers.


page 16

The following radar charts illustrate the relative importance of each of the personal reasons in the

different Member States.

-40

-20

0

20

BE CZ

DK DE

EE

EL

ES

FR

IE

IT

CYLVLTLUHU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

SI

SK

FI SE

UK

-40

-20

0

20

BE CZ

DK DE

EE

EL

ES

FR

IE

IT

CYLVLTLUHU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

SI

SK

FI SE

UK

-40

-20

0

20

BE CZ

DK DE

EE

EL

ES

FR

IE

IT

CYLVLTLUHU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

SI

SK

FI SE

UK

-40

-20

0

20

BE CZ

DK DE

EE

EL

ES

FR

IE

IT

CYLVLTLUHU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

SI

SK

FI SE

UK

-40

-20

0

20

BE CZ

DK DE

EE

EL

ES

FR

IE

IT

CYLVLTLUHU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

SI

SK

FI SE

UK

-40

-20

0

20

BE CZ

DK DE

EE

EL

ES

FR

IE

IT

CYLVLTLUHU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

SI

SK

FI SE

UK

-40

-20

0

20

BE CZ

DK DE

EE

EL

ES

FR

IE

IT

CYLVLTLUHU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

SI

SK

FI SE

UK

-40

-20

0

20

BE CZ

DK DE

EE

EL

ES

FR

IE

IT

CYLVLTLUHU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

SI

SK

FI SE

UK

To feel involved in the building of Europe/ feel European

Have all the information to take part in European

debates, elections, etc

To better know my rights or possibilities as a European citizen

To better know what EU Institutions do

for citizens

Relative importance of various personal motives

To be able to check what actual EU policies are in certain areas

To feel concerned by what is going on in the other

countries of Europe

To be able to have some influence over the development of European co-operation

To know about Europes role in the world


% deviation from the importance ranking on EU-25 level, a value greater than 0 indicates that the actual reason was relatively higher ranked in the actual Member State, while a value lower than 0 means that the

motive is ranked lower compared to the EU25 ranking.

The graphs are based on two values: the relative importance of the individual motive as compared to

all of the other reasons (on EU average), and the individual country divergences from this EU average.

The red dots show how much responses from individual countries (in this case the ratio of respondents



who mentioned the motive as important) diverge from the EU average for the given motive. A score

below zero (represented by the red dot) indicates that the relative relevance of the motive for the given

country is lower than the EU average, a score above zero means that the motive was relatively more

important.

The personal motive of feeling involved in the building of Europe / feeling European is the most

important (compared to other countries) for decision makers in Portugal, Estonia and Hungary.

Compared to other countries, it is the least often mentioned motivation by respondents in the

Netherlands, Germany, and Latvia.

Being able to participate in EU elections or debates is mentioned relatively most often by decision

makers in Luxembourg, Germany and France. In Lithuania, Sweden, and Estonia, decision makers

were relatively the least likely to emphasize this motive.

Respondents in Latvia, Lithuania, and Cyprus emphasized knowing their rights and possibilities as

European citizens more than elites in other countries did. Danish top decision makers were the

furthest from the average here: they were much less likely to accentuate this motive for searching out

information than elites in other countries.

Decision makers in Lithuania, Slovenia, and Cyprus emphasized the motive of better knowledge of

what EU institutions do for citizens, while respondents in Denmark mentioned this motive by far the

least often.

Danish, German and Latvian decision makers stand out in mentioning the importance of obtaining

factual knowledge about the policies of the EU in certain areas. Elites in France, Spain, and Cyprus

selected this motive the least often compared to other EU elites.

Seeking out information about the EU because they feel concerned by what is going on in the other

countries of Europe is mentioned relatively the most often in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the

Czech Republic. Elites in Germany, Austria and Slovakia are much less interested in this aspect than

are elites on average.

Danish, Polish and Dutch decision makers are relatively the most likely to look for information in

order to be able to have some influence over the development of European co-operation. Top

decision makers were relatively the least inclined to select this reason in Lithuania, Germany, Slovenia

and Sweden.

Finally, knowing about Europes global role was a relatively more important motivation in Germany,

Sweden, and Cyprus than in other countries. Elites mentioned this motive the least often in Italy,

Luxembourg, Latvia and Poland.


page 18

1.2.2 Professional reasons for obtaining information

For 77% of top decision-makers across the Member States, being informed about the EU is important

professionally because of the need to adapt to European regulations, decisions, and policies. 72% also

agree that remaining up-to-date on European matters is important for being prepared to work with

partners form other EU countries. 60% of respondents state that they seek out EU information in order

to take advantage of European Union grants, financing, and other financial opportunities. For a bit

more than half of respondents, the need to be better prepared for competition within the EU is also a

prime professional motivation for obtaining information about European politics.

Professional motives for being informed about the EU

77

72

60

54

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

to be able to adapt toEuropean Union

regulations, decisions,policies

to be prepared to work withcompanies or colleagues

from European Unioncountries

to take advantage ofEuropean Union grants,

financing, etc.

to be better prepared forbusiness competition within

the European Union

Q3b. You mentioned professional reasons for being informed about European politics. Please tell for each of them if you think it is an important reason for you or not?

% important, EU25

As the table below illustrates, compared to the representatives of the other groups, managers of the top

companies across Europe are much more interested in European affairs from the perspective of

business competition (71%). This figure is the lowest for high ranking civil servants: 40%. Leaders

of professional association and trade unions are the most inclined to use EU information for

cooperation with others across the Union (78%). Adapting to EU policies, regulations and decisions is

a prime reason for members of parliaments (80%), and high level civil servants (82%), as well as for

CEOs of large companies (80%). High level government officials are the most motivated to seek out

EU information in order to apply for grants or other European funds (67%).

Professional reasons to obtain information about the EU, by professional affiliation, % EU-25

to be better

prepared for

business

competition

within the EU

to be able to

adapt to EU

regulations,

decisions,

policies

to take

advantage of

EU grants,

financing, etc.

to be prepared

to work with

companies or

colleagues

from EU

countries

CEOs of large companies 71 80 61 69

Chief editors in the national media 53 67 48 68

Members of the national parliament 54 80 64 75

High ranking officials of the state

administration 40 82 67 70

Leaders of trade unions, professional

associations 53 77 61 78



Looking more closely at each of the professional motivations for obtaining information on the EU, we

find that elites in the different countries give different weight to these motivations.

Better preparation for business competition is the prime reason why decision makers wish to be

informed in Ireland (79%), Slovenia (76%) and Greece (72%). This reason is mentioned much less

often by respondents in Sweden (35%), France (40%) and the Netherlands (42%).

Professionally motivated to receive information in order toto be better prepared for business competition within the European Union

Q3b. You mentioned professional reasons. To be informed about the European Union is important in order toa. to be better prepared for business competition within the European Union

% by country

7672 69 67 64 63 63 62 62 60 59 58 58 56 54 54 53 53 53 51 48 47 47 46

42 4035

79

IE SI

EL

CY FI

ES

PT

EE

AT

PL

MT

LV

EU

10 SK

DE

EU

25

IT LU

HU

EU

15 UK

DK

LT

CZ

BE

NL

FR

SE

Being up-to-date on EU-level regulatory measures and policies is especially important professionally

for decision makers in Malta: almost all decision makers interviewed in Malta stated that this was an

important motive for obtaining information about the EU (95%). This was also the case in Portugal

(93%), Hungary (93%) and Slovenia (92%). Danish and Swedish top decision makers were the least

likely to be professionally motivated by the desire to remain up-to-date on regulatory measures and

policies (62% and 61%, respectively).

93 93 9288 87 86 86 85 85 83 83 82 81

77 77 77 76 76 75 74 73 71 71 69 6862 61

95

MT

PT

HU SI

SK IE PL FI

EE

EU

10 EL

LT IT AT

UK

EU

25

CY

EU

15 ES

DE

LU

CZ

LV

BE

NL

FR

DK

SE

Professionally motivated to receive information in order toto be able to adapt to European Union regulations, decisions, policies

Q3b. You mentioned professional reasons. To be informed about the European Union is important in order tob. to be able to adapt to European Union regulations, decisions, policies

% by country

EU money matters most to decision makers in some of the EU-10 Member States (see graph on the

next page). Top level decision makers in Malta (88%), Poland (81%), Slovakia (80%), Hungary and

Slovenia (both 79%) mentioned most often that they seek EU information in order to take advantage

of EU grants and other financing. This motive is much less relevant in Sweden (40%), Luxembourg

(41%) and France (44%).


page 20

81 80 79 79 7671 69 69 67 64 64 64 63 63 60 60 59 57 57 57 56

51 50 4844 41 40

88

MT

PL

SK

HU SI

EU

10 IT AT IE PT

ES

EE

CY FI

CZ

EU

25

LV

LT

DE

EU

15 BE

NL

EL

UK

DK

FR

LU SE

Professionally motivated to receive information in order toto take advantage of European Union grants, financing, etc.

Q3b. You mentioned professional reasons. To be informed about the European Union is important in order toc. to take advantage of European Union grants, financing, etc.

% by country

Working with companies or colleagues from other EU countries was a particularly important reason

for obtaining information in Portugal (91%), Slovakia (89%) and Ireland (87%). On the other hand,

only 48% of Greek decision makers say that this is an important motivation for finding EU

information. Danish (57%) and Dutch (60%) decision makers are also less likely to mention

cooperation with other EU companies or colleagues as an important reason for seeking out EU

information.

89 87 84 82 81 79 79 78 78 77 77 77 76 75 74 72 71 71 70 69 68 66 64 62 60 57

48

91

PT

SK IE

MT SI

AT

EE

CZ

LV

EU

10 FI

LT IT PL

UK

HU

EU

25

ES

EU

15 FR

LU

DE

CY

BE

SE

NL

DK

EL

Professionally motivated to receive information in order toto be prepared to work with companies or colleagues from European Union countries

Q3b. You mentioned professional reasons. To be informed about the European Union is important in order tod. to be prepared to work with companies or colleagues from European Union countries

% by country

An analysis of relative importance (like the one that we carried out in the previous subchapter)

provides interesting insights regarding professional motivations as well. Again, for each motivation,

we are comparing data from individual countries to the EU average.

Success in business competition is the most prominent driving force for seeking out information in

Greece, Cyprus, and Ireland. Compared to other countries, it is the least important in Hungary,

France, Sweden and the Czech Republic (see graph on the next page). A methodological note: each

national sample included the same number of respondents from each professional group, therefore an

unusually high proportion of businessmen in a specific national elite sample cannot explain the

differences we found.

Adapting to European Union regulations, decisions, and policies stands out as an important motive in

Greece (compared to the EU average); but it is also relatively more important in France, Sweden,,

Hungary, Luxembourg and Lithuania. The desire to follow regulations, decisions and policies is

relatively the least important motivation for seeking out information in Latvia, Ireland and Spain. This

graph shows a narrow range of variation around the EU average, indicating that more or less the same

number of respondents across the EU Member States mention this as an important motivation.



-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

ATBE

CYCZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FRHUIEITLT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

SE

SISK

UK

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

ATBE

CYCZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FRHUIEITLT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

SE

SISK

UK

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

ATBE

CYCZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FRHUIEITLT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

SE

SISK

UK

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

ATBE

CYCZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FRHUIEITLT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

SE

SISK

UK

Relative importance of various professional motives

To be better prepared for business competition within the EU

To be able to adapt to EU regulations, decisions,

policies

To take advantage of EU grants, financing, etc.

To be prepared to work with companies or

colleagues from EU countries


% deviation from the importance ranking on EU-25 level, a value greater than 0 indicates that the actual reason was relatively higher ranked in the actual Member State, while a value lower than 0 means that the

motive is ranked lower compared to the EU25 ranking.

We have seen that in absolute terms, EU-10 Member States are the most interested in information

about EU grants and other financing opportunities. However, if we compare it to other motivations,

and to the EU average, we find that besides it is a particularly important motive in Poland, Malta,

Hungary, and Slovakia, it is also in the focus of interest more than other aspects in Italy and the

Netherlands. The countries where the desire to get information about EU grants and funds was a

relatively less important motivating factor were Luxembourg, Greece, Sweden, the UK and France.

Finally, comparing national rankings to the EU-25 average, cooperation opportunities motivate an

unusually high number of decision makers in Sweden and France, while the attributed importance in

unusually low in Greece, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia and Poland.


page 22

2. Delivering the EUs message

The fundamental need for transparency and for an effective communication policy within the EU is

beyond question. The survey tested a few statements addressing the most essential elements of a

democratic institutions communication policy. Decision makers throughout Europe and across the

spectrum agree that the fundamental principles are beyond discussion. The statements: All

European citizens should have the right of access to full and fair information, Information should be

widely available, in the citizens own language and readily understandable and Policy-making,

decision-making and administration should be as transparent, open and visible as possible met with

the fullest agreement of the Unions elite groups (98%), but the other principles were thought to be

almost as important as well. There is an extremely broad agreement (97%) that: Citizens should be

able to hear and compare different opinions and points of views on European issues. Finally, 93% of

the Member States elite group agree that Citizens and representative associations shall have the right

and the means to express their views and to be heard.

Agreement with statements about information on EU issues, % of yes

98

98

98

97

93

0 20 40 60 80 100

Information should be widely available, accessible in thecitizens own language and readily understandable

All European citizens should have the right to fair and fullinformation

Policy-making, decision-making and administrationshould be as transparent, open and visible as possible

Citizens should be able to hear and compare differentopinions and points of views on European issues

Citizens and representative associations shall have theright and the means to express their views and to be

heard

Q6. Would you agree / disagree with the following statements about information on European Union issues?

% by EU25



2.1. A communication policy EU initiatives

The Commission is looking for ways to connect more effectively with the EUs citizens. This survey

tested several issues underlined in the Commission White Paper on Communication Policy a policy

paper developed to lay down the foundations of citizen-centred communication and to establish

communication as a policy in its own right.

Assessment of selected communication initiatives of the White Paper

56

70

53

22

13

26

16

15

17

6

3

4

0% 25% 50% 7 5% 1 00%

Upgrading a central EU

audio-visual service, called

Europe by Satellite to better

provide broadcasters with

video, sound

Providing training for public

communication for

professionals dealing with EU

issues at regional, national, or

EU level

Setting up an Observatory of

European public opinion,

where national polls about EU

and general policy matters

are contin

Would help Would not help It depends how it will be implemented DK/NA

Q9. Please tell me if the following initiatives would help in building a more efficient communication on European Union matters?

% by EU25

Decision makers are most supportive of the initiative that aims to train a more professional staff to

provide communication services related to the European Union at all levels, from the central

institutions down to the regions. 70% of those interviewed in the EU think that this would help

enhance the EUs ability to communicate, only 13% disagree and 15% are somewhat sceptical if such

a training effort could indeed be useful. Leaders of the national media and professional associations

are the most enthusiastic about such an initiative; 73% of both groups think that improving the

communication skills of civil servants and other relevant professionals could improve the situation.

Those who deal with the EU frequently (on a daily basis, or at least regularly) are especially in

favour of such an initiative (73%-74% say training would help), versus those who are less involved in

EU matters in their jobs (with about 67% agreeing).

Upgrading the European Unions TV information service Europe by Satellite (EbS) to better provide

broadcasters with content is an initiative supported by close to six in ten (56%) top-level decision

makers across the EU and opposed only by 22%. 16% of those interviewed warned that the usefulness

of this initiative would depend on how it was actually implemented. Media managers are not more

likely than others to consider this as a helpful improvement: just the opposite is true. 54% of them

agree (somewhat below the EU-25 average) and 28% (well above the EU average) say it would not

help.

The idea of setting up a public observatory for European public opinion gained the least approval, but

it is still supported by a majority of decision makers in the EU (53%). About a quarter of the national

elite groups in the Union disapprove of this idea, while 17% give it only conditional support,

indicating that the usefulness of such an initiative will depend on how it is implemented. High-

ranking officials are most sceptical in this respect: only 44% of them support it unconditionally, in

contrast to 63% of the leaders of professional organisations and trade unions, or 59% among the media

elite groups. A third of MPs (32%) and those who deal with EU matters in their jobs on a regular basis

(33%) dismiss this idea, reasoning that it would not be helpful in building a more efficient EU

communication policy.


page 24

2.1.1 Training of communication staff

Results, of course, vary significantly across Member States. However, we often find the same elite

groups supporting and rejecting each of the initiatives. Starting with the most popular one, the training

of professionals (in other words, responsible public officials) in their public communication skills is

most supported by Greek top-level decision makers (89% thinking it would help to enhance EU

communication), followed by the Irish (85%) and Portuguese (84%) decision makers. The least

convinced are the Dutch (with only 40% thinking that training could help), Swedish (50%), Danish

(55%) and Estonian (56%) decision makers. Outright opposition is highest in Denmark, where 35% of

those interviewed said they do not think such training could help improve EU communication.

85 84 82 80 80 79 76 74 73 72 72 71 70 70 70 70 70 69 68 6762 61 61

56 5550

40

4 7 153 10 10

83 7 7 7 7 8

13 14 96

198 14

5 10 19

35

1529

4 611 18

5

16 10 12 1621 17 17

23 18 1615 14 18 23

13

17 17 33 27 20

5

2829

3 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 5 4 6 3 3 3 21

8 71

6 5 7 3

89

3

34

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 00%

EL IE PT

MT

DE

CY

LT

AT IT LV

EE

PL SI

EU

10 LU

EU

25

EU

15 ES

HU

UK

CZ

FR FI

SK

BE

DK

SE

NL


Assessment of selected communication initiatives of the White Paper Training for public communication for professionals

Q9. Please tell me if the following initiatives would help in building a more efficient communication on European Union matters?

b) Providing training for public communication for professionals dealing with EU issues at regional, national, or EU level

% by country



2.1.2 Upgrading Europe by Satellite (EbS)

The upgrading of the EUs TV information service is again most supported by Greek decision makers

(91%), followed by the Irish (76%). The plurality of the German elite oppose investing more in EbS

(47%), and the majority are either against the initiative, or sceptical about it, in 7 out of the 25

Member States (Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands).

Nevertheless, in the majority of the Member States, the elite groups support strengthening the

European Union audio-visual news service in order to enhance the EUs ability to communicate.

76 73 73 72 71 71 69 66 65 64 62 58 58 56 56 55 55 54 5346 45 44 41 40 40

3323

6

1410

6 5 7 10 13 11 11 13

415 22

2824

15

32

826 28

40 47

1814

22

22

29

21 12 21 22 23 13 15 18 18 1735

2216

1215

21

13

30

2127

11 7

27 33 3346

1 2 1 5 2 2 9 7 7 83 5 6 5 6 9

19 7

16

14 13 13 10

91

5

68

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 00%

EL IE SI

IT HU

CY

MT

LT

PL

EU

10 CZ

LU

PT

ES

EU

25

UK

EU

15 FR

AT

SK

BE

NL

DK

DE

LV

EE

SE FI


Assessment of selected communication initiatives of the White PaperUpgrading Europe by Satellite

Q9. Please tell me if the following initiatives would help in building a more efficient communication on EU matters?a) Upgrading a central EU audio-visual service, called Europe by Satellite

to better provide broadcasters with video, soundand images on behalf of the three main EU institutions% by country

2.1.3 Public Opinion Observatory

80 78 7866 64 64 64 63 61 59 56 55 53 53 52 51 50 49 48 46 42 42 41 40 39 38

27

3 9 14

20

8 10 83

19 1829

11

3226

2227

20 2215

3251

2819 23 25 28

55

12 8 185

925 25

21 3314

15

13

25

1417

1918

27 2229

21

7

29

29 2130 28

15

3 3 1 4 6 3 2 81

6 2 81 4 8 4

2 6 82 1 2

166 6 3

82

3

118

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 00%

PT

EL

CY IE PL

ES SI

HU

MT

LT

EU

10 UK

LV

AT

EU

25

LU

EU

15 BE

IT FR

NL

DE

FI

SK

CZ

EE

SE

DK


Assessment of selected communication initiatives of the White PaperObservatory of European public opinion

Q9. Please tell me if the following initiatives would help in building a more efficient communication on EU matters?c) Setting up an Observatory of European public opinion, where national polls about EU and general policy matters

are continuously collected and analysed% by country

This initiative is favoured by 82% of Portuguese decision makers, 80% of Greek and 78% of their

Cypriot and Irish counterparts. In 18 out of the 25 Member States, the plurality of respondents approve

this initiative. The greatest numbers of opponents can be found among the Danish (55%) and German

(51%) top decision makers.


page 26

2.1.4 Role of Commissioners

Commissioners have a prominent role to help giving Europe a human face especially in their home

countries , thereby bringing the EU closer to its citizens. As the Action Plan4 puts it: They are [the

Commissions] main and most effective communicators. Commissioners will individually or as a

team enhance their role as key communicators, not only on their own portfolios but also on other

priority issues when travelling to Member States. We asked top level decision makers throughout the

Member States about their view in this respect, and most of them were more inclined to agree that

Commissioners should spend considerable time in their home country to embody policies and the

agenda of the EU for their home audience.

55 54 52 50 48 47 46 45 43 42 42 42 42 41 40 4037 35 35 34 33

30 28 25 25 2519

26

4237

41 4045

50 50 5046

56

50 5053

56 55 55

4753

5753

50

65

52

6965

69

58

68

FI

PT

DK

CY

LV

MT

EL SI

PL

SE

HU

DE

LU

NL

EE

EU

10 LT IT

EU

25

AT

EU

15 ES

IE BE

CZ

SK

UK

FR

Commissioners should continuously work and live in Brussels in order to carry out theirtasks within the Commission properly

Commissioners should partly work and live in their home country in order to remaincloser to citizens, and to provide better information about the EU in their country

The preferred role of the Commissioner in bringing the EU closer to citizens

Q18. Which of the two statements comes closer to your mind? % by country

Decision makers in the various Member States have very different opinions on this question. On

average, 35% would like to see their Commissioners remain primarily in Brussels, while 53% would

prefer to have them available domestically on a more regular basis. The Finnish respondents have a

distinct preference for their Commissioner to be Brussels-centric (68% say Commissioners should live

and work in Brussels full-time), and this is the dominant opinion in Portugal (55%), Denmark (52%)

and in Latvia (50%) too. Still, in most countries top decision makers are more inclined even if only

marginally to think that their Commissioners also have a job to do at home. They should therefore

spend part of their time in their home country. Decision makers in the UK (69%), the Czech Republic

(69%), Slovakia (65%) and Ireland (65%) are especially keen for their Commissioner to spend a

significant amount of time on the domestic front in order to promote EU policies through being easily

reachable by national media.

Decision makers in the older generations (aged 50 or over) are more likely to prefer the

Commissioners to focus on the Brussels scene. Among the professional groups, the MPs prefer the

Commissioner to remain in Brussels the most (52%), while 62% of company managers and top level

decision makers in professional associations and trade unions would like the Commissioners to visit

and work in their home countries on a more regular basis. It is interesting to note that the more

intensively a leader deals with the EU professionally, the more likely he, or she, is to think that it

would be better if Commissioners stayed in Brussels: 50% of those working with European Union

matters on a daily basis share this opinion. For more details please refer to the relevant table in the

Annex.

4 Action Plan to Improve Communicating Europe by the Commission,

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/pdf/communication_com_en.pdf



2.1.5 Cooperation in conveying information

According to the White Paper A working European public sphere cannot be shaped in Brussels. It

can only emerge if the objective is backed by all key actors and taken forward at every level. The

national level remains the primary entry point for any political debate, and Member States

governments and other national actors have a responsibility to use national channels to ensure a robust

European debate. Doing the job together is a central platform in the plans to improve

communication. However, it is not necessarily seen as useful under all circumstances.

67 65 64 61 60 60 57 56 52 52 50 48 48 46 45 4544 43 43 41 40 37 34 34 32 31 31

25 26 3231 33 37 37 40

3640 33

42 42 47 51

4535 51

47 5148 51 44 54

5659 55

2 1

3 2 6 3 14 0 10

4 5 6 65 4

8

15 6 66

9 814 8

107 9

7 92 3 4 5 4 2 4 3 2 4 5 2 4

122 4 3 1 4 4 2 6 2 4

73

28

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 00%

PT

EE

EL

IT CY

PL

MT

LT

SK

ES

EU

10 FR

EU

25

EU

15 SE SI

BE

DK

AT

DE

IE FI

HU

LU

CZ

NL

UK

LV

useful under all circumstances useful on a limited number of topics not useful DK/NA

Shared responsibility in disseminating information

Q5. Providing information on European Union issues could be done in closer partnership between the EU and other actors such as national authorities including regional and local authorities, political parties and civil

society organisations. Do you think that such a partnership and shared responsibilities would be... % by country

While all decision makers agree that such a shared responsibility can enhance the ability to

communicate, (only 6% at the EU-25 level say it would not be useful), many in most countries believe

that such cooperation is only useful on a limited variety of topics. The countries where the largest

majority supports cooperation unconditionally are: Portugal (where 73% claim that doing the job

together would be useful under all circumstances), Estonia (67%), Greece (65%) and Italy (64%). In

11 of the 25 Member States, the plurality of decision makers thinks that such cooperation is useful

only in certain areas. This is especially true for the elite groups in the UK (59%), the Netherlands

(56%), Latvia (55%) and the Czech Republic (54%).

The more directly respondents are involved in EU problems in their work, the more likely they are to

believe that cooperation with national actors is useful under all circumstances (52% of those who work

on EU-related problems on a daily basis say so, versus only 40% of those whose work does not

directly involve the EU at all.) Also, members of national parliaments are much more likely than

others to believe in the benefits of unconditional shared responsibilities in communication efforts

(57%).


page 28

2.2. The role of national governments

In 23 Member States, the plurality of top-level decision makers hold the national government

responsible for informing citizens on what the European Union is doing and how this affects their

daily life.

The Danish decision makers hold the Commission more responsible than their government (and much

more than their national media) for informing them about the EU, while the French choose the other

option most frequently, rather than any of the categories listed (see respective table for the details in

the Annex). Otherwise, the picture below is universally applicable to all the countries of the EU. It

shows that decision makers expect their national government to be the primary channel for conveying

relevant information about the European Union, according to 37% of the decision makers in the EU.

The Commission are only a distant second (18%). Among the Member States, decision makers expect

the European Parliament (12%), almost as much as the national media (13%), to keep citizens

informed about how the EU works and how it affects their daily life.

88

712 14

518 19

143 2

413 13

117 8

2

54

37 33

33 4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU25 EU15 EU10

DK/NA

other

media

NGOs

the European Commission

the European Parliament

the national parliament and political parties

the national government

Primary responsibility to inform citizens on what EU does, how this affects the daily life

Q7. According to you, who should be primarily responsible for informing citizens about what the European Union does and how this affects their daily life ?

Respondents in the EU-15 are more likely to believe that the Commission and the European

Parliament are responsible for informing citizens on all things EU-related than are decision makers in

the EU-10, who hold their national government more responsible. National parliaments and political

parties are only preferred by a small minority (8%), even among those working in those institutions

(10%). NGOs are not considered to be a prime source of information for the EUs citizens (3%).

Even those working in the media sector consider governments to be equally responsible along with

the media itself - for providing information (both are chosen by 29% in this group). Corporate

managers (43%) and high officials (42%) are among the groups most likely to prefer the government

to disseminate relevant information about the EU. 22% of those who work directly with EU issues

every day would like the Commission to disseminate information to EU citizens, but even they prefer

the government the most (38%).

The plurality of European decision makers and the majority of those from the EU-10 believes that

governments are also primarily responsible for taking into account the citizens opinions on EU issues.

Decision makers are twice as likely to believe that such wishes should be directed towards their

national government (40%) rather than to the European Parliament (21%) or even their national

parliament (19%). Only 10% express the view that such opinions should be primarily taken into

account by the Commission.



1920

1721 23

1010 11 81 1 25 6 1

57

40 36

54 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

7 0%

80%

90%

100%

EU25 EU15 EU10

DK/NA

other

NGOs

the European Commission

the European Parliament

the national parliament and political parties

the national government

Primary responsibility to take into account the citizens wishes on European issues

Q8. In your opinion, whose primary responsibility is to take into account citizens wishes on European issues?

National governments are held primarily responsible for taking the peoples opinions into account in

every country except for Denmark and Germany. In the latter two countries, decision makers most

often stated that the European Parliament should be primarily responsible for taking citizens opinions

into account. The Danish attribute this responsibility to their national parliament in greatest numbers.

The opinions do not differ fundamentally according to key segments in the sample; however, we find a

somewhat stronger preference towards both European and national parliaments among those working

in them (MPs) and among chief editors within national media. Invariably, among all segments of

European decision makers, national governments are held primarily responsible for accommodating

and representing citizens views on European issues.

Decision makers in the Member States dominantly perceive that their governments do not provide

enough information to citizens.

In the EU-25 zone, top level decision makers are clearly unhappy with the performance of their

government regarding EU communication (only 29% believe that their government provides sufficient

information, while 65% feel the contrary) and this is the dominant opinion even within the ranks of

the governments: 39% of high officials regard their governments performance as satisfactory while

51% do not. The map on the next page shows those Member States in the EU where decision makers

are content with their governments performance in providing information about the Union.

General discontent is found more or less across the whole of the EU, although there are five Member

States where the elite groups are reasonably happy with their governments performance: in Finland

(57%), Hungary (57%), Slovenia (55%), Denmark (55%) and Ireland (52%). In Malta, Luxembourg

and Estonia, decision makers are about equally split in their assessment, while in all other EU

countries, the local decision makers are unhappy with their governments performance.


page 30

GALLUP

Source:

FLASH EB 189b October 2006

57 55 55 5249

45 4540

35 35 33 33 30 29 29 29 29 29 27 26 26 2523 21 20 20

15

57

0

25

50

7 5

1 00

FI

HU SI

DK IE

MT EE

LU

ES

CY

AT

LV

NL

UK

EL

EU

10

DE

EU

25

EU

15

BE

SK

SE IT PL

LT

PT

CZ

FR

Provides the necessary information

The performance of national governments, as conveyors of sufficient information on the EU

Q4. According to your opinion, does the [COUNTRY] government do a good enough job

providing the necessary information about the European institutions and

their activities to the citizens?

Provides the

necessary

information

Opinions on this question are solid; there are no remarkable variations in the views of the various

sample segments. Relatively speaking, those happiest with the communication provided by their

government (but still fundamentally unhappy) are government officials (39%), along with those who

deal with EU issues in their jobs on a daily basis (34%).



Exactly two-thirds of the EUs decision makers do not consider that EU institutions more open,

accessible and responsive than their national counterparts, with only 17% confirming it. Respondents

from the EU-10 Member States are slightly more favourable towards EU institutions. Even so, they

dominantly think that EU institutions are not more accessible compared with national-level institutions

(50% vs. 23% claiming the opposite).

44 42 40 37

25 24 23 23 23 22 21 21 19 19 17 16 14 14 13 11 11 10 8 8 7 6 5

33

47

35

49 48

63

47 5052

48

6961

43

64

44

67 7175 78

63

81 7883

7784

88

6472

50

CY

EL

PT

MT SI

IT CZ

EU

10 PL

SK IE ES

LV

LT

HU

EU

25

EU

15 LU

UK

FR

AT

NL

DK

BE

DE

FI

EE

SE

Yes No

Are European institutions more accessible than national institutions?

Q20. Do you think that European Union institutions are more open, accessible and responsive than your national institutions?

% by country

The only countries where high-level decision makers consider EU institutions to be more accessible

than national institutions are Cyprus and P

analytical report - european...

Documents