1. What are your opinions of the Convention process?

The Convention has a unique chance, not only to push forward a substantial reform of the treaties in the direction of a Constitution, but also to change the methods and instruments of treaty changes. For the first time national parliamentarians and European parliamentarians are involved in the preparation of the reform of an international treaty, and if the Convention succeeds, this will be the first step from intergovernmentalism in reforming the treaties to the Community method. This is of strategical importance. There has been a lot of reluctance, hesitation, even enmity, against the Convention, between governments but also in some national parliaments. The Convention will only have one chance, because if it fails, there will be never again be a new Convention for treaty changes. That is why we must not fail.

2. What in that case would you see as a success or failure?

It would be a failure if the Convention in the end comes only to some vague recommendations; it would be a failure if the Convention is satisfied with proposing some amendments to the Nice treaty. It would be a failure if the Convention in the end proposes three or four alternative options.

It would be a success if the Convention proposes even a limited, but a substantial, draft for a new treaty by a large consensus, not necessarily by unanimity. It is only by this large consensus that it will have a political impact on what the governments will have to decide in the intergovernmental conference.

3. At the launch of the Convention, all the speakers stressed the need to involve public opinion. How important do you see this in influencing the governments in the end?

Public opinion as such is not increasing the impact on what the Convention will propose. If you look only on that it would make things easier for governments to do what they want. It is necessary that the Convention itself collects the different opinions of the civil society and integrates them in a clear, unique, coherent draft treaty. Then we can win public opinion, increasing the impact on the next IGC.

4. You said that this process is unique because it includes national and European parliamentarians. What role do you see for Members of the European Parliament in this?

We entered in this Convention a new phase in European decision making processes. We will discuss a new treaty in a transparent and open way, we will have an extensive exchange of views with the Candidate Countries and every member of the Convention will act independently. This is an important step forward compared to the traditional IGC method towards a real European decision making process. Members of the European Parliament, as the other Parliamentarians, the governmental representatives, have to try with all their force, to do all in their power to come to a unique, coherent, draft treaty as a proposal for the intergovernmental conference.

5. What kind of treaty do you envisage the Convention producing? There have been many proposals put forward so far.

We will see that in the end. I advise the Convention not to lose itself in the beginning in debates on definitions, e.g. what is or what will be or should be a Constitution or what is or will be or should be European federalism and so on. In those debates a Constitution will be lost. It is better to start our work and continue our work by respecting as an imperative that all our proposals must be proposals which could be central elements of a European Constitution. Whether in the end we call it Constitution or treaty or fundamental treaty or whatever is less important than what is in the text. And if that is worth calling a Constitution we will do so.

6. The Presidium has a certain amount of discretion in managing the work of the Convention. Surely the ideas brought by the members of the Presidium in the beginning will influence the result?

No, the opposite is true. We start the Convention with a period of ‘ecoute’, of listening. This is not only listening to public society but it is also a listening to Convention members. It is not the Presidium which will put forward certain ideas but it is up to the Convention members to make it clear what they see as the appropriate reform of the Union.

7. There has been criticism of the Presidium not reflecting a gender balance.

It is regrettable, but it is not for me to criticise the decisions of the national parliaments or the governments, who sent their representatives or who decided on their representatives. The delegation of the Socialist group in the European Parliament delegation respects gender equality.

8. It has been suggested that there should have been a representative of a candidate country on the Presidium too.

It is a Laeken decision that there is none in the Presidium. We want to have an impact on the future intergovernmental conference which will be hopefully at the end of the 2003, or at the beginning of 2004 at the latest. It would damage the impact of a draft if too many people from outside are involved or have influence on what member states alone have to decide. It is good that we have representatives of the applicant countries with us; it is good that they participate in the debate and have the opportunity to work in the Convention as any member can; but they cannot participate in the decisions. I think this is correct. From the moment – if it happens – that there is an adhesion treaty ratified before the end of the Convention, then of course this country will be a member of the Convention as a member country, but it is up to that.

9. Will the requirement to reach consensus mean merely the lowest common denominator?

There is a danger in the consensus method, no doubt, but there is also a danger in the other method, which is to draft alternative options. The danger of that means that the public really does not know what the Convention wants, and the governments will do what they want and not what the Convention wants. I think therefore that the consensus method is more appropriate to the Convention. There is another argument in favour of the consensus method – the Convention is not a Parliament. We are not representative; there is no clear proportional representation whatsoever of voters in the Convention. There is another point which leads me to say that there is no other way than the consensus method. Consensus does not mean unanimity, but I will not deny the danger that consensus may be the lowest common denominator. That is why I think that the majority in the Convention and the Presidium must be ready to draft a proposal which reflects bold realism. Because what we want is not to have a draft treaty for the history books, but a new treaty in 2004.

10. So you see the Presidium having to set a higher goal at a later stage and then try to build consensus around it?

I am sure that the composition of the Convention and the manner of working together will create a certain esprit de corps, and that on the basis of this we will be able to propose more than a normal intergovernmental conference would have been able to propose on the best of its actions.

11. What is the state of the public debate in Germany?

Germany is in a pre-electoral period and there is very little public debate on the Convention. Nevertheless some of the national newspapers debate it and describe the Convention, and they are of a certain sceptical hope that in the end the Convention will bring the Union not only a small but a very big step forward in the direction of a Constitution.

12. Is there any organisation of a public campaign, public information, at this stage?

We are just preparing the public debate on the work of the Convention and so it is not yet organised or quite clear, but I think that after the election at the very latest, we will have an intense debate on the future of Europe.

13. Will this be an electoral issue in Germany?

No, I do not think so. It cannot be an electoral issue, as there will have been no results by September. We will be still in the discussion period of the Convention. Normal public opinion, which is different from the opinion of non-governmental organisations, will only care about it if there are texts, in the end.

14. I ask you these questions because our Convention Bulletin this week is focusing on the debate in Germany.

There is a need of discussion in our parties, in our organisations, which deal with European questions. It is very useful that every organisation, also the European youth organisations, the European federalists, are participating and are giving their input into the debate.

15. In his speech at the launch of the Convention, President Giscard d’Estaing gave a great deal of support to involving young people in the Convention process, and proposed a shadow Youth Convention. What is your view of this idea?

I have not yet clear views on that question but we will have a debate in the Presidium at the next meeting, when we will have the first proposals of Mr Dehaene who is responsible for the public debate with the Convention. I think it is a good idea to have an organised debate of non-governmental organisations. It is important to have this debate organised, whether you call it shadow Convention or whatever, because experience shows us that there are so many different, and often contradictory opinions in public opinion, so it is a good idea to have the organisations of civil society debating also with each other.

16. Some countries, such as the UK and Denmark, seem to see the establishment of the Convention as the maximum concession they can make, and now seem to want to fight a rearguard action to prevent it going too far. Do you think this attitude poses a real problem for the Convention?

This will be a problem. But I know that other countries and other groups of countries will also pose problems – other problems, but also fundamental problems, as to the limits which should be drawn for the Convention and its proposals. So Britain will not be alone. In fact, it’s never alone. It is quite clear that it is not only the United Kingdom seeing limits, it is also the smaller countries which for certain reforms have clear limits on what they will accept; the applicant countries, which I think will not be in favour of the most federalist draft treaty, and so on. There are main problems which have to be solved by the Convention, and there is no other way than to try to bring them together. That means that all of them will have to sacrifice some of what they call limits, and all of them will have to receive something of what they think is absolutely necessary for reform of the Union.

17. It has been suggested that one way out of this would be an avant-garde, a federal core, a federal vanguard of nations. What do you think of this idea?

If you try to make those conceptions part of the work of the Convention, then it is the end of the Convention. That is because the Convention is to unite Europe and not to divide Europe. Neither the avant-garde, and this means also the opposite ‘post-garde’, or core Europe, by which we will then have a peripheral Europe: this is not the task of the Convention. What we have to do is to try to have structures for the Union which apply for a Union with more than 20 member states, and not for 15, or 12, or 8, or however many. If this is difficult, that is why we have a Convention and not an intergovernmental conference.

18. It has been argued that these strategies will be necessary because of the following IGC, because even if the Convention produces a good result, some member states might refuse it at the IGC.

I do not think so, when we have found a consensus in the Convention, that means that the so-called Euro-sceptic countries are in, by their members of parliament or their representatives of government. Also, if it is a result found by consensus, I hope and I am sure it will have a sort of public engagement, there will be public pressure. I am optimistic that a result found by consensus will lead governments to accept what the Convention has drafted.

19. If you had to sum up your goals for the Convention into a few words, what would be the focal points that you wanted to achieve out of the process?

Firstly: a more clear, transparent, treaty with the Fundamental Rights Charter, and on the institutions, decision-making processes and competences of the Union. Second, a Parliament which is a full co-legislator in the Union. Thirdly, a Council which is able to lead the Union and to act as co-legislator in public. Next, a new order of competences of the Union, which gives the Union more power in the social and ecological organisation of the internal market, of safeguarding the stability of the common currency, of transnational security, civil security, and the defence of common interests to the outside world.