Excellent, you're making an effort now! Progress! Now, let's go and fix what's actually wrong. At the start, we said:
โฆSo, a full third want a domestic alternative, but not to pay for it?
Pay more
I mean, yes, thatโs what I said, but [..]
And then I clarify:
[..] not willing to pay for a service to be domestic
and
[..] They are willing to pay for the service itself, but not to have it be domestic
So, not that they're not willing to pay at all, but that, in their mind, kicking out the Yanks is a "nice to have", not an actual selling point they would pay for specifically. Once again, to clarify, the "it" in "pay for it" is specifically the local nature of the service, not the service itself.
Then, you slide in with "I donโt understand why you think it should be more expensive if itโs locally made.", and I genuinely don't know where you got that from. I'm not saying it should, or even would cost more, I'm saying that I'm actually not saying anything, the article is saying that if it did, 50% (well, 51%) would not pay for it, and presumably opt for a cheaper, foreign option. And because this is the conversation it is, I am hereby clarifying that "cheaper" can also mean "free".
I donโt understand how you could possibly be dumb enough to read this any other way.
Well, my French may be exceedingly rusty, but the thing I'd read here is that "surcout", "plus cher", and "basculer vers un fournisseur" all refer to the 49% who would pay. The 83% response is to the question about the EU.