Q: What are your general expectations for the Convention?

A: My maximum expectation would be a first European constitutional text. Maybe not the final version of the future shape of Europe, but a valid one. And for that I require three essential elements of a real constitution:

Firstly we need a true European democracy, a kind of republican basic order. But one must understand, that we are not trying to solve the debate about the finality of Europe. We are primarily aiming at the fulfilment of the principals of democracy in the supranational field. That’s a historical challenge, especially considering that democracy was always connected exclusively to the nation state. This objective involves as well the full legal imbedding of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the abolition of the second and third pillar, full competence for the European Court of Justice, a proper administration, and a European party statute. All in all a wide range, reaching from a reformed institutional order, a system of checks and balances, and separation of powers, to public legislation and legal binding of the administration. The whole spectrum of our European political heritage.

Secondly Europe’s capability of acting must be fortified. This mean majority voting instead of unanimity, apart from constitutional amendments. This means as well reforming Council and Commission, to protect further integration from national interests.

The third necessary element is a serious political unification of Europe. Europe’s main problems are caused by a misbalance between the economic and the political integration. The main emphasis of political integration must be on Common Foreign, Security and Defence Policy, and on the social dimension of the European unification. To achieve a true political unification, there must be the will to care for defence and security, and not to rely on the Americans. Looking at the social aspect of integration I must state that the European integration is not irreversible. It can fail in two points – Contradiction to democracy and contradiction to social demands. This means, apart from a common economical policy, we need a harmonised social, fiscal and finance policy.

Q: Germany and Austria have a longer tradition of federal-republican systems. But how do you want to attract nations with a clearly centralised political system?

A: The Convention could fail in this question. The sceptics will only be willing to compromise if the main question of the Convention is not the finality of Europe, meaning federal state or federation of states. We have to aim at European democracy in the first place. Therefore I’m appealing to the Federalists, not to focus on the European Federation in this constitutional debate. You will lose and destroy every chance for a first European Constitution. There is no chance for any agreement in the question of finality. There isn’t even a common agreement on abstracts, being it federation or subsidiarity. The central idea of this Convention must be democratisation. No matter which competencies, what level of centralisation the European integration we want to achieve - any kind of power on the European level has to be democratic. The European Constitution should not be the culmination of further European integration, but its prerequisite. We need acceptance and democratic legitimisation, and thus the trust of our citizens, before we can think about further integration

Q: Don’t you miss an intelligent anti-European force in order to have a serious constructive discussion?

A: I’m seriously warning those who underestimate the intelligence and competence of the Eurosceptics. And they are being nourished by unexpected sources. Joschka Fischer, for example, declared that national identity is the last and most important of every European. Our governments think they can defend their power in the pretext of national identity. They want to be administration, legislation and protectors of the Constitution at the same time. Parliaments are permanently being weakened on the national levels, and played off against the European Parliament. But to claim a true European democracy would weaken the national parliaments is completely absurd. Our competence would only be strengthened where the national assemblies have already lost their competencies. As if national parliaments would be able to control the second and third pillar. As if national courts could guarantee European fundamental rights, versus Europol, versus Schengen. That’s not even ridiculous! But this egomania of our European margraves might, again, cause the failure of European unification.

Q: Who are our allies?

A: Well, quite a lot as well! The Convention still might fail, but I have big hopes for parliamentarian dynamics. Even the national representatives will be aware of the special character of this Constitutional Convention. We parliamentarians have the public as a strong backing. Just look at the Fundamental Rights Charter. After failing in Nice to have it legally binding, it’s already on the agenda again. You can’t stop this dynamic!

Q: How can Europe’s citizens be involved more closely into this development?

A: We have to improve their ability to make decisions. Europe has to be made by its citizens, not only understood and accepted. We have to ask clear questions, like “Do you want to have a social dimension for Europe?”, “Do you want extensive democracy in Europe?”, “Who is supposed to legislate Europe? Elected representatives or governments?”. And believe me, Europe’s citizens will have clear ideas.

Q: What’s the particular strength of the European Parliament?

A: Well, the EP is no full parliament yet, but it still is the most powerful one in Europe. The feature of not being in the usual system of interdependence of a government strengthens our position as well.

Q: Is there a need actively to work on a European identity?

A: No, because any kind of European nationalism has to be declined. Europe’s cohesion must not be founded on typical nationalistic symbolism. This would lead again to exclusion, and the impression of a European super-state, an inflated nation-state could be justified. Our emotional cohesion has to develop gradually and naturally.

Q: What’s the world’s view of Europe?

A: Well, there’s one important prerequisite missing: We don’t know yet ourselves, how we want to be seen.

Q: Some are demanding an avant-garde within the Union, in order to accelerate integration. Do you agree?

A: What’s really happening in such an avant-garde? A handful of states would rather fix the direction, than the speed of integration. The succeeding ones would have to accept this system without being asked. Such development would definitely not strengthen the resentments of Europe’s citizens in the Union as a whole.