WRITTEN QUESTION E-3370/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Mr Prodi's comments on the outcome of the Swedish referendum on EMU.
Date: 2003-11-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, European Union membership, President of the Commission, Sweden, non-participating country (euro area), public statement, referendum

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/531

Does the Commission likewise distance itself from this survey, which it commissioned itself? If so, is this
the first time that the Commission has distanced itself from the findings of its own research? What is the
point of such opinion polls if the Commission itself says that the results do not reflect its views? Does not
the Commission consider that in that case it would be better not to commission such irresponsible
research, in order not to confuse public opinion?

Has the Commission used EOS Gallup Europe before? Was a public invitation to tender issued? What was
the cost of the opinion poll?

Who was responsible for the questions asked in the poll? Who selected the list of fifteen countries which
might possibly constitute ‘a threat to world peace’?

Does the Commission agree with the Israeli Ambassador in Rome that this poll will make it difficult for
Europe to act as an intermediary in the Middle East peace process in the near future?

Will the Commission apologise to the Israeli authorities for the damage to Israel’s image caused by this EU-
funded survey?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission’s answer to Written Question P-3334/03 by
Ms Muscardini (1).

The Commission would also remind the Honourable Member that each Eurobarometer report contains the
following caveat: ‘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.’ The Commission has also
It does,
expressed reservations about the question on which countries are a threat to world peace.
however, consider that the results are indicative of worrying prejudices.

The Commission currently has five framework contracts under which opinion surveys are being
conducted. These were awarded through tender procedures. The Flash Eurobarometer is the instrument
through which surveys by telephone are carried out on the Commission’s behalf. As far as the EOS Gallup
Europe institute is concerned, the contract was signed with TNS Sofres in January 2002, and the TNS
Sofres coordination centre for the Flash Eurobarometer contract is EOS Gallup Europe. Since the contract
was signed, about thirty Flash Eurobarometers have been produced for the Commission. The cost of the
study on Iraq and world peace (preparation, fieldwork, statistical processing and report writing) was
EUR 150 098,34 for approximately fifteen questions.

(1) See page 263.

(2004/C 78 E/0553)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3370/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Mr Prodi’s comments on the outcome of the Swedish referendum on EMU

On 21 September 2003, the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet published comments made by Romano Prodi
on the outcome of the Swedish referendum on EMU. Mr Prodi reportedly said that the Swedes voted
against because they are afraid of new developments and because they believe that their democracy is
superior to others’. Mr Prodi went on to say that the result of the vote mirrored the general feeling in a
country and that the Swedes’ rejection was also a reflection of our sense of distinctive character and a
distance between the Swedish and European peoples, as well as showing a lack of knowledge about
Europe.

C 78 E/532

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Do Romano Prodi’s comments also represent the views of the Commission? If so, can the Commission
explain in greater detail why the Swedes are afraid of new developments and elaborate on the significance
of the distance referred to between the Swedish and European peoples?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

At Parliament’s plenary session of 16 January 2002, the President of the Commission said that ‘to millions
of European citizens, the euro notes and coins in their pockets are a concrete sign of the great political
undertaking of building a united Europe. As a symbol of that unity, the euro is having an even greater
psychological impact than the abolition of passport controls at Europe’s internal borders. So the euro is
becoming a key element in people’s sense of shared European identity and common destiny. It is tangible
evidence that European integration is now irreversible. … We must take this as a valuable lesson in our
step-by-step progress towards enlargement’.

This well known position is that of the whole Commission, and there was no reason to modify it during
the campaign prior to the referendum on the adoption of the euro in Sweden.

As for the remarks reported by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, they would seem to have been based
on an interview with President Prodi which appeared in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on
15 September 2003.

In fact the President of the Commission did not make the remark attributed to him by the Swedish
newspaper; he did say, in accordance with the Commission line on the subject: ‘It is a pity, because many
Swedes understand the advantages of the euro for growth. But a majority of public opinion is still afraid of
change. This was the political choice of those who want to emphasise what distinguishes them and who
fear losing what they consider to be their essential identity (cid:1) even losing economic advantages. … Every
nation has the right to express its views. And it is our duty to respect the beliefs revealed in any
democratic consultation.’ And: ‘In northern Europe, part of the population remains firmly convinced that a
given social model can defend itself better by concentrating on its own chosen identity in politics rather
than economics.’

(2004/C 78 E/0554)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3371/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Legal implications of ratification of EU draft Constitution

Article 311 of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that the protocols form an integral
part of the Treaty. As the existing treaties (cid:1) the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the
European Community (cid:1) will cease to be valid once the EU’s draft Constitution is ratified, it must also be
expected that the existing protocols will also cease to be valid and will be renegotiated in accordance with
the principle set out in Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.

Moreover, Part IV of the Convention’s draft Constitution, Articles IV-2 and IV-3, in particular the second
paragraph thereof, states that only those protocols mentioned in the protocol annexed to the Treaty
establishing the Constitution will remain in force. This must be construed as meaning that the other
protocols which are not listed in the protocol annexed to the Constitution cease to be valid and are to be
renegotiated by the Heads of Government at the Intergovernmental Conference. Can the Commission
confirm this to be the case?

Can the Commission say what the legal implications of ratification of the EU’s draft Constitution will be in
relation to the protocols which are currently annexed to the present Treaties?