- You are a member of the Convention Presidium and also a member of the European Parliament’s Intergroup for a European Constitution. You have been calling for a Constitution for the European Union for some time. Why?

In the past the European Parliament Constitutional Affairs Committee was called the Institutional Affairs Committee, and in 1999 I proposed to change the name because I thought we were heading towards a Constitution. It is difficult to explain what an Institutional Affairs Committee does, but everyone understand what a Constitutional Affairs Committee does.

In 1993 I was the director of a course at a University on a Constitution for Europe, and we edited a book. In the mid-1990s, I thought it was an objective for the future, at the time in the European Parliament we were discussing the Oreja report, but I thought that we were just looking into the future, that it was not yet the time to do this. I do believe that now is the time to do this. Why? Because I think that the euro makes much more visible the need for political union, and secondly because enlargement requires a new foundation of Europe. I think the answer is the Constitution.

I use the term Constitution – I am a legal professor, so I know that the actual term is a constitutional treaty, because the Intergovernmental Conference is going to produce the treaty. Unless we organise referenda: in that case it would be a Constitution, but this is not up to us to decide. I would be in favour, but it’s not up to me to decide. I use the word Constitution because people, people in the street, do not understand what a constitutional treaty is, but they do understand what a Constitution is. It is a text which establishes the rules, the playing rules, a very clear, not long, concise text, which states the missions of the European Union: the why? Which principles and values does the European Union stand for? That is basically the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Third, the competences of the Union – what should the Union do? Then the instruments – how should the Union proceed? And then last but not least: who does it? The institutional framework. This is how I see the Constitution.

- What kind of support do you see for this in the Convention at the moment?

It was a kind of taboo topic to talk about a Constitution. But the other day in Seville the Spanish Foreign Minister talked about the new Constitution. It has become such a useful concept that everybody uses it. I do believe that when President Giscard talks about a constitutional treaty we are heading towards that.

- Constitution is a word which can mean very different things to very different people. For some this is a way of restricting the powers of the Union, for others it is a way to give more powers to the European level, and there are many shades of opinion in between. What is your view?

That’s right, but I think first of all the Constitution establishes the rules, the playing rules, and that is good for the people to know. The people we meet everyday complain that they do not know what Europe does, and they fear that Europe does too much. In a Constitution the playing rules should be very clearly stated, and that should comfort those people.

The second idea is that people fear that Europe does too much, and in that way a Constitution is also a way of limiting powers. I’ve never followed this thinking that Europe overdoes things, but for others who think like that, if a Constitution, in the way that a Constitution limits powers, comforts them, I’m happy.

Thirdly a Constitution makes Europe more political, and not only economic, and on that I feel very comfortable because I do believe that Europe needs to be a political union if Europe wants to be a key player in the world.

- What sort of role do you see for the member states in this future Europe?

I think that Europe is a union of states and a union of people, and I think that the member states will still be part of the machinery and important players. I do not think that member states will vanish or disappear. I still believe that member states will be players.

- The crucial question, of course, is which institution will be the Executive of the Union. Where is the face of Europe? Should it be the Council, the Commission, or the Parliament? What are your thoughts?

That will really depend on what we do with Foreign and Security Policy. From the debates in the Convention we can see that there is a need for more Europe, but on the other hand foreign affairs and security have always been in the hands of governments. There is this famous expression that foreign affairs are a question of kings, not of the people. If you combine this maybe with the end of the six-months presidency, then you have a bulk of competences in the hands of the member states. Sometimes I am asked, are you for Monnet or Metternich – there are not only these two choices, we have to be creative. This is a good time to do it, maybe to mix both or to take a step by step approach. I do not think that out of the Convention we will see that foreign policy and security will be in the hands of the Commission. I do not think that the time is ripe for that. But maybe it will happen. I do believe that we should try to be creative.

- What do you think about the proposals for a President of the Council as suggested by some governments?

If you end the six-month presidency, as most think is necessary, this may be a possibility, but the Convention has not talked about it yet. The Convention Presidium is working from a logic – first why, what, how, and then we will go to who, but we want to have something like an acquis first.

- The Convention has been working for several months now. How do you feel about the way that is developing so far?

We know in an even more clear way than before that our task is enormous. I think that we are acting logically, that we wanted to listen to the people and that is why we have organised this meeting today. That was important to see what comes out from the European and national opinion. We have already started to work in working groups and I hope that the working groups will provide answers to the many questions that have been raised in the debate.

- You were also involved in the Convention on the Charter on Fundamental Rights. How similar are the two experiences?

It is different in a way. The idea of the Convention on the Charter was to codify existing rights – we went far beyond that and did more, but no one is against rights. You may not agree on which rights to include but all of us are in favour of human rights. Here it is more difficult, the subject is stronger, it is not as easy as that. We are following other rules of procedure. The Convention on the Charter worked as a whole in open plenary, but here this would be very difficult, because we are larger – almost double the members of the Convention. At the end of the day I do believe that there will be a consensus built up of the components. Only if the four components – governments, parliaments, European parliament, and commission, agree will there be a consensus and this is clear.

- Before the Convention started there was speculation that including candidate countries would slow down its work and perhaps even block it. My impression has been that this has not happened, indeed that they have often been more positive than existing member states. What do you think?

Absolutely. I would agree with you. I was rapporteur for the European Parliament at Laeken and at that stage I had to take the decision, together with Jo Leinen, because we were in favour of including the candidate countries. Our reasoning was that we were discussing the future of Europe, and how could we discuss the future without those countries which would be part of that future. On the other hand this was against the interests of the European Parliament, because in the Convention on the Charter we were 16 out of 62 but here we are 16 out of 105. But I do believe it was important to do this. I think the experience has been very positive.

They are well integrated into the debate and they are talking about something we often tend to forget, we “old” Europeans. They are talking about principles and values and that is very important. We are concentrating on competences and on internal market which are important, but they are talking about principles and values and I think that is really what it’s about.

We do not value it as much, but they do – it’s very positive to remind us what has been Europe in the past history and why we want to make sure those things don’t happen again.

- If the Convention produces a good draft, how do you think the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference will respond?

I was at the European Council at Seville, and the spirit of the Convention is developing also among the Prime Ministers. At the beginning they were very conscious of the need not to interfere. I do believe that if there is a consensus, it will mean that also the governments – who have a representative, who is more than a representative of the administration but is a personal representative of the Prime Minister – that he also agrees to it. If there is a consensus here then I think most of the work of the IGC will be done. That is what Mr Piquet said in the conference, I want most of the work to be done here so that the IGC will be a short one.

- This has been a much more open process already, and it has generated a lot of interest.

In the Convention on the Charter they were mostly experts, legal experts, and the President of the Convention on the Charter thought, perhaps he was right, that publicity was not the best thing, we had focus on working together, on getting to know each other. Here there are more politicians, and politicians are aware that our success will depend on how public opinion reflects on our work, and we need the support of public opinion. We are taking the consequences of what we did in the past, and we are trying to be more open, have more participation, and take into account what people believe, because at the end of the day, if we do not have their support we will fail.

Interview conducted by Alison Weston