3rd EHP Round: European Solidarity

On a scale from 0 (absolutely not) to 10 (yes, absolutely), the participants selected an average value of 7.4 for this question: clear support for mutual solidarity in the event of a crisis. The evaluation of the arguments behind the tendency toward homogeneity of opinion reveals a multifaceted picture of opinion. On the one hand, the participants in the European House Parliaments saw it as important to provide special support to EU states affected by crises. On the other hand, there were calls for financial support to be made conditional on necessary structural reforms.

On the question of increased investment by the EU in social policy measures, a more differentiated picture emerged in the European House Parliaments. On the one hand, the EU is seen primarily as an economic community that is not responsible for the policy field of social policy; on the other hand, social inequality is seen as a major threat to the EU. In addition, some participants in the European House Parliaments wanted the EU to make more investments in the field of education.

A very clear picture emerges, however, with regard to the question of whether the EU should primarily promote environmentally friendly investments and jobs. On average, the participants chose a value of 8.9, which means that even after weighing up the counter-arguments, the participants clearly call for more investment in climate protection. On the question of promoting environmentally compatible innovations and jobs, a majority of the House Parliaments affirmed that a change of course on climate change is urgent and necessary. It's not a question of "if and when," but "how now?"! This
sustainable change not only preserves jobs and social systems, but also increases the EU's competitiveness.