1. What are your hopes and fears about the Convention process in general?

The experiences of the Intergovernmental Conference in Nice, which in many points merely produced solutions which represented the smallest common denominator, showed that the current procedure, where treaty amendments are negotiated behind closed doors by government representatives, has reached its limits. That is why we, together with others, initiated the convention process. Its aim was to include the vari-ous institutions with democratic legitimacy - the European Parliament, national par-liaments, governments and the Commission - in the reform process from the outset. The success of the Convention's work so far would appear to show that this approach was right.

2. What is your assessment of its work so far?

Both the plenary meetings and the working groups have worked very successfully to date. Naturally, the controversial key issues cannot be negotiated until the Con-vention's final phase. In some difficult areas, however, we have already come sur-prisingly far, e.g. in the question of a single legal personality. I believe that the Con-vention's work during the first few months has been impressive.

3. You have been very involved in the discussion about a legal personality for the EU. Could you briefly explain what you think is the significance of this issue, and your assessment of the support within the Convention for the proposals of the working group? What difference would this make to the Union compared to the situation as it stands today?

Even experts find it difficult to comprehend the current construction with the two organizations EU and EC and the three pillars Common Foreign and Security Policy, justice and home affairs, as well as the Community field. The introduction of a single legal personality will make it possible to overcome the pillar structure and to finally develop a clear structure for the Union which everyone can understand. Furthermore, it will pave the way for a more coherent representation vis-à-vis third countries or in international organizations. For this reason, I staunchly supported the work done by Vice-President Amato in the working group and, what is more, put forward a proposal on how the Union's future constitution could be structured: a basic constitutional treaty and a constitutional law in which the more technical regulations are set out in greater detail.

4. Keeping in mind that Peter Hain spoke against the proposals, do you think that these proposals are likely to be accepted by the governments?

Peter Hain has stressed time and again how much importance he attaches to making the Union comprehensible to citizens and he therefore welcomed the report submitted by the Amato working group. It goes without saying that overcoming the pillar struc-ture does not mean that the same procedures have to apply in all areas. Particularly in the case of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, it will certainly be necessary to develop special procedures which correspond to the unique nature of this political sphere. There is no disagreement whatever on this.

5. What is the German government's position on subsidiarity, and its view of the results of the working group on subsidiarity? What is your view of the proposal to give national parliaments a greater role in monitoring subsidiarity at the Union level?

The first question which citizens ask the Union is: what does the Union do? What do the member states do? Subsidiarity forms a basis for a sensible distribution of tasks - the allocation of competences. Clear rules on the exercise of competences are also especially important.
The competent Convention working group proposed a three-step mechanism on monitoring subsidiarity which I support. Firstly, every legislative initiative should take into account subsidiarity aspects from the outset. Subsequently, the working group proposes, national parliaments should have the right to submit a reasoned opinion within the framework of the legislative process. National parliaments will be informed in full, thus enhancing democratic control. Should there be a violation of the principle of subsidiarity once a legal instrument has been adopted, it is possible to refer the matter to the Court of Justice which, among other things, showed with its ruling of October 2000 on tobacco advertising that it ensures compliance with the allocation of competences within the Union. In this connection, I believe it should be examined whether regions with their own legislative competence, for example the German Länder, could be granted their own right to bring an action before the Court of Justice.

6. What is the position of the German Government regarding the role and election of the President of the Commission?

We want to strengthen the Commission and its President by enhancing their demo-cratic legitimacy and are therefore in favour of the election of the Commission Presi-dent by the European Parliament. The Chancellor's representative, Professor Glotz, introduced an initiative on this which was supported by more than 40 members of the Convention.

7. What prospects do you see for a greater role for the Union level in the field of foreign and security policy?

Greater demands will be placed on an enlarged Union, particularly when it comes to representing Europe's interests in the world. In order to meet these greater demands, the Union must enhance its capability to act in the field of foreign policy. The EU must speak with one voice in foreign-policy issues. In a first step, the offices of the External Relations Commissioner and the High Representative for the CFSP should be exercised by one person ("double hat"). To ensure that the "double hat" can act effec-tively, he will require two deputies - one for Commission affairs and one for Council affairs - and must be able to rely on an efficient European diplomatic service. The latter should consist of the following elements: the External Relations Directorate-General of the Commission answerable to the "double hat" in his capacity as External Affairs Commissioner, an independent foreign policy unit, which should consist of those parts of the Council Secretariat responsible for foreign policy and of seconded civil servants from the member states and the Commission, as well as external repre-sentations which report back to the "double hat". To this end, the Commission dele-gations should be transformed into EU delegations and amalgamated with the external offices of the Council Secretariat. The current staff would, if necessary, be extended to include personnel from the foreign policy unit.
In an EU with 25 members, the half-yearly rotating Presidency, and the Troika, will be ineffective. It should, below the level of the European Council, be abolished for the CFSP sphere and assumed by the "double hat", including the chairmanship of the Council when it deals with foreign policy issues. The "double hat" should also be granted a formal right of proposal. Moreover, decisions in the CFSP sphere should, as a rule, be made with a qualified majority.

8. If you had to summarise your objectives for the Convention in just a few words, what would they be?

The aim of the Convention is to create a more democratic and transparent European Union with a greater capacity to act which will lose none of its efficiency even when it has 25 or more members.

9. Lastly, how optimistic are you that the Convention will be able to produce a single, strong text to propose to the European Council?

Very optimistic: I am confident that the Convention will be able to submit a draft con-stitution for the European Union next summer which will have the support of the entire Convention and which the subsequent intergovernmental conference will there-fore have to take into account.

Interview has been conducted on October 14th 2002 by Jan Kreutz, contact jan.kreutz@jef-europe.net