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

My fear is that we fail to produce a common text. Lots of work gets done, lots of working groups get set up, lots of minutes drafted, but it often looks like we are not making progress towards what we should be producing which is a new draft treaty. The main hope is of course that we do manage to produce one final document. Come September, the listening phase will be over, the working groups will be starting to move, and we should start to see some concrete outcomes.

Do you think the danger of not producing a final text is due to the organisational structure of the Convention, or due to political differences among those represented in the Convention?

I think there was a lack of clarity right from the outset concerning the overall goals of the Convention. You can’t sort out the organisational structure if you have no idea what the outcome is going to be. If you know for example that you are going to produce a draft treaty, you would know which working groups should be organised. Before you get into the general discussions, you have to have in mind what you want to achieve, when it comes to treaty changes.

Do you therefore think a Constitution for the European Union should be the result of the Convention?

I’m not going to get hung up on whether you call it a constitution or a constitutional treaty, or a new treaty. I think that people want to know what the European Union does, what it doesn’t do, and how it does it.

In that context, what should the future role of the European Parliament be?

We should be looking at more co-decision. I certainly want to see co-decision when it comes to agricultural expenditure. I think we have to get CAP spending out of the closed Council and to deal with it under a normal procedure.

And we must not just think about the European Parliament, but the role of National Parliaments as well.

But should we look to fundamentally change the triangular structure of decision making of Commission, Council and Parliament, or is it a case of better explaining that structure to people?

If you look at the latest Eurobarometer, what is interesting about it is that in almost every European country, people have an idea of what the Parliament does, and the Commission as well. No-one has any idea what the Council does. I don’t think people know the influence their national ministers have. So I think we need to concentrate on reforming the Council. The people do not know what is decided in Council, and who is responsible for the decisions taken there. If people could watch their ministers going off to sign whatever new treaty or policy, I think this would greatly improve things. This does not change the structures, but would have a major impact.

We also have to deal with the accountability of the Commission. When you hear Jeremy Paxman on the BBC’s Newsnight in the UK stating to Commissioners ‘you’re just a bureaucrat’, we have to show that this is not the case.

I do not think the institutions are perfect, but I do not view them as the most major problem.

Do you think there is a danger that the Convention produces a result that the UK government does not like?

This was the reason why national governments are involved in the convention, to prevent such a thing happening. I cannot at the moment see things taking that course. There are many strands of opinion, and it is definitely not Britain against the rest. I think there are a number of different views that divide the convention members.

But there are ideas, such as that for a 5 year Council Presidency that Britain is proposing, which might not gain support.

It is not just the British proposing this. But those who support the idea have to sell it to their colleagues. The main issue is the effectiveness of Council.

In general, I do not think that those supporting the Commission or the Council is the real dividing issue in the European Union. The real dividing line is between those who believe in the European Union and those who don’t. I do not believe people do not like Europe because the Parliament does not elect the president of the Commission. We have to keep in mind that the vast majority of those in the Convention believe in the European Union and want it to grow and develop.

Coverage of the Convention in the British press has been very, very low. Do you think this is because the Convention is not interesting, or is it because the debate has been stifled by the ongoing arguments about the Euro in the UK?

I think we generally have a very low understanding of European issues in the UK. The workings of the EU are just not seen as a big issue in the UK in the way they perhaps are in Germany. We have to use a language that enables people to feel somehow closer to the European Union, away from treaties and the complexities of the EU institutions. I don’t aim to get people to love the European institutions. They do not love their national governments or their town council but they understand it. The thing that struck me when I was knocking on doors in the local elections is that people have a vision in their minds of the town hall, and the sort of things the local council does. When I say I am a member of the European Parliament, people do not have such an idea of exactly what it is that I do. That we must aim to change. People do not now think about the big issues, such as peace in Europe, as reasons for the European Union. They think more practically, and we should cater for that.

Note: Interview Conducted in July 2002