1. What is your general impression of the work of the Convention so far?

The progress is better than expected. Consensus emerged on some points that were not expected, eg the acceptance to have a Constitution of the EU.

2. What are your five most important points to be included in the European Constitution?

It is important to advance on the way to a Political Union. The institutional triangle should be strengthened in all its elements. From the EP point of view the enhancement of the Community method by general co decision of the EP, except in specifically limited cases is essential.The EP should have full budgetary control, the distinction between obligatory and non obligatory expenses should be abolished.

3. What role does the Convention play in the political agenda of the European Parliament?

The EP has been paving the way on many issues, that are dealt with in the Convention by its reports and resolutions. The Lamassoure report on the competences has influenced the discussions to a large extent.

4. What do you think about Valéry Giscard's proposed structure for the future European Constitution? Is it a crucial step forward for a federal Constitution or does it express Giscard's intergovernmental perception of the future Europe?

The structure goes in the right direction, although I would have wished that it had been presented earlier. Now it is essential to fill the structure with content. The results achieved so far have to be translated until February in an integral draft. The PPE group in the Convention has already prepared a discussion paper for such an integral text.

5. Do you think that in the second draft of the constitution, proposed changes from within the convention (e.g. on mentioning the citizens in Article 1 and erasing the idea of a congress of the people) will be included? What will be the influence of the normal Convention members in amending the final constitution?

The Convention is a more democratic process, deriving from the weak results from the IGC of Nice. The influence of the Convention members is far greater than by civil servants under instruction, this will greatly enhance the importance of the draft Constitution. When concrete text negotiations will take place, members will jointly in the political groups in the Convention use their influence role when it comes to buliding compromises.

6. What do you think about the question on the presidency of the Union? Should there be a President of the European Commission elected by the European Parliament and should there additionally be a President of the Council?

I am in favour of a President of the Commission elected by the EP. Realistically no consensus seems to be able for the time being . Therefore the Council should propose a candidate in light of the result from the European Elections which is approved by the EP.The EU Presidency should work for a longer term than the current six months, there seems to be a majority for change . A President of the Council with executive powers however will change the institutional equilibrium and weaken the Commission and the EP.

7. Another crucial issue besides the institutions are the competences. Within the working group there was no consensus on the future division of competences. Do you think that it will be possible to come to a consensus in the plenary?

Members know that the Convention will have to find a compromise also on this issue, otherwise it will have no impact in the IGC. The distinction between own, shared and supplementary competences will be supported by many members. We do not propose catalogues of competences, but for the sake of transparency we have to decide who does what in the EU. The competences of the Union, but not of the member states have to be mentioned in the Constitution.

8. What would you like to have as an exclusive EU-competence?

The current acquis is the basis, beyond that certain evolutions are imaginable. For instance the own competence in trade policy should be extended to goods and services.

9. Giscard d'Estaing talked about establishing another working group, dealing with the issue "social Europe". Do you think there should be other working groups, e.g. on institutional questions or do you think that these questions should be left to the convention plenary?

On behalf of the PPE Group in the Convention I supported this idea, in order to give social questions a seperate forum from the WG 6, which concentrated on economic and financial questions.But we insisted that the mandate be limited to constitutional implications of social questions.

10. Do you think all EU-Governments will accept the result of the Convention? How far do you think will the IGC change the result of the Convention?

This depends on the amount of consensus reached. The recent joining of Foreign Ministers Fischer and Villepin has strengthened the role of the Convention. They have understood that the Convention is the forum where decisions are taken.

11. Is there a common position of the Convention members of the PPE-DE concerning a European Referendum following the IGC?

In principle many arguments can be found for a decision by the European citizens about a project that will change the EU for decennia. From the legal point of view the procedure of ratification will depend from the national constitutions, where large majority require parliamentary ratification.

12. In case that the Convention result will not be ratified by one of the EU or applicant members, what do you think should happen with these countries?

The advantage of having the Constitution is that it is a new foundation, meaning that those memberstates ratifying the treaty will become members, while the others will be offered an association status. Unlike the changes of the present treaties, a single country could not stop the band wagon.

Thank you Mr. Brok for your Interview. We wish you all the best for your future work.