1.What are your expectations for the Convention?

The Convention probably offers the last chance to shape a European Union capable of development and decision making. Simultaneously the opportunity is presented to us even more strongly to lead the discussion over the Future of the European Union not behind closed doors under secrecy but openly developing a solution in a democratically legitimate procedure. We must work towards achieving a result which allows the citizen to know who is responsible for what in Europe and who she or he can hold accountable in the eventuality of wrong decisions or negative developments. This includes an individually binding Charter of Fundamental Rights available to the citizen to protect himself against injustice. Moreover, it must arrive at the removal of the right of veto and the strengthening of the European Parliament.

2. How do you see the role of representatives of the European Parliament in the Convention?

The members of European Parliament are statistically the strongest group within the Convention. Together with the 30 national parliamentarians from the member states we build a clear majority of directly elected representatives. Therefore our priority should lie with improving the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the Union and its institutions as the heads of State and Government declared as their goal in Nice in 2000. Simultaneously a specific responsibility rests with us regarding the resolution of compromises especially when there are different interests between Government representatives. From all the Convention members the members of European Parliament will have the greatest experience of solving conflicts and differences of opinion on a European level to reach acceptable solutions.

3. What do you estimate the Convention’s possibilities are in elaborating/drawing up a Constitution for the EU?

I regard the drawing up process of a Constitution as essential as the method of improving the existing treaties is at its end and the necessary reforms are not allowed to be implemented. This exercise is despite its difficulty solfable. After all the Convention does not have to draft a Constitution for the European Union from scratch. We should rather work on the already existing outlines of the Union based on of the already existing treaties. It is about the further development of the Union not its discovery. We must put forward a coherent result to the IGC which will suit as the single negotiation basis. It must draw up general points of solution strategies and should offer different options only in the case of exceptions. Such a constitutional proposal receiving its direct legitimacy by the majority of the peoples’ representatives could only be refused with a great deal of excuses by the Heads of State and Government.

4. How do you see the public debate on the Convention in Germany?

The debate is in my esteem not fully in swing in its contents. When one brings to mind the importance of this Convention of the European Union, the role of the Convention in the media can not be overemphasised. Here are the participants of the Convention, on the one hand, asked to incorporate the public in the debate as was expressly declared at the European Council meeting in Laeken. On the media side, more coverage and with more frequency should be given. It should not be that the sole admissions over which detailed reporting takes place are those of the first and the final meeting of the Convention. Besides, it should be our goal not to lead 15 isolated national debates but a single European one. Such a commonly led debate would have-like btw also the Introduction of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Constitution- an identity founding consequence/effect for the European people.