What do you think of the Convention process in general?

I am not actually in the Convention, I am watching it from outside. It has taken some time to get all the procedures in order, but now they are really discussing important things. It is a success that we have the Convention per se, because it shows that discussion is possible, that it is possible to discuss these things with openness and transparency. It is creating a broader interest and discussion. I visit schools every Friday, I have visited 150 schools during this mandate. Most people have actually heard of the Convention and they ask me about it. So this is a success.

It is a little bit early to be able to judge the results yet, they have only had a few meetings and the first two or three were mostly procedural, but I am still very positive. They are discussing important things. I am a little bit critical about the way they are consulting with the youth organisations and with civil society, there has not been too much of that yet.

You said they were discussing important issues – what issues do you think it should tackle?

It is a Constitutional Convention, even if it is not called that, so it has to deal with institutional matters. Reforming the CFSP is important but that is not what the Convention should discuss. It should discuss the fundamental tools of democracy in Europe, which are the institutional balance, power balance, the division of labour, the involvement of national parliaments, the power of the parliaments, transparency, openness, flexibility. This things might sound technical and academic but they are the tools of democracy.

What would you like to see the Convention produce?

I want a Constitution.

A European Federal Constitution, that starts with “We, the people of Europe”, or “We, the peoples of Europe”, and to have a comprehensive document, taken out from the treaties. We cannot rewrite it all, but we need a Constitution which shows the values of the European Union, which will really put the citizen, the European citizen, at the centre. One which will outline the main tasks of the different institutions, the relations between them, and the powers of each of them. I think that would be good, and it could also tackle the more concrete subject of the lack of transparency in the Council, of the imbalance in certain issues of the Parliament where the Council takes decisions by qualified majority, the role of national parliaments, and strengthen subsidiarity. I would like to see a Constitutional Court, with power in competence conflicts, and with a role also in subsidiarity.

I know you have drafted a Constitution – why did you do that?

I have been thinking about this a lot, and I thought, why not try, see how it looks like. It is a very ambitious task to take on and I do not claim to have resolved all the problems. I looked at old constitutions from Europe that have been done, and those in other states, especially federal and semi-federal states. It actually worked! It is possible.

Of course you need much more judicial expertise, and it could not be just adopted as it is today. I wanted to show, especially in Sweden where we don’t discuss constitutional matters in the way that we should, that this is how it can be. It resulted in a 10-page constitutional proposal. It is provocative, certain things need some extra thinking, but it’s there.

It had never been done before in Sweden. We had a big press seminar with journalists there, they thought it was a crazy idea but quite fun. Actually when I am out discussing these things with other politicians and youth organisations, I have found that quite a few people have read it. It’s on my website, and people write to me and send me opinions. Some think it’s extremely bad, federalist rot, and one person even said that it’s not federalist enough!

There are several controversial elements. What role do you see for the Member States?

I was trying to find the balance between vision and realism, and perhaps that is not the best way to do it. If you want to be realistic then I think this is the only way possibility, that in the short-term that the Member States do still have these powers to nominate and to ratify. Of course I dream of a world where there are no borders, where it really does not matter – where the national state maybe exists, but in a sense more of archaeological interest – so in a future world I hope that they will play a much smaller role. And I hope also that we could nominate on competence, but it is not realistic to do that now. I am becoming more and more conscious that I come from a small country, and if we were to do all this today it would only be the big countries which take over, and it would be impossible for the small countries to come in. We come from different language groups, not many people speak Swedish or Finnish or Greek or Portuguese, and in the light of enlargement, something that I think is extremely important, it is not realistic. That is why the Member States should still have a role.

The question of competences is a crucial one. How do you deal with it?

This was also a very interesting intellectual exercise for me, and I did it independently of exactly how it is regulated in the treaties on a legal basis. Looking in existing federal constitutions, you can either regulate what is done at the federal level, and the rest is done at the national level, or you can do it the other way, what is done at the local or Lander level and the rest is at the European level. I combined them both to clarify for myself and for others. We voted last week on the Lamassoure report, I wrote mine before his, and we were along the same lines, so it’s not totally out of line!

You include EU competence in foreign and Security policy – does that include defence as well?

No, because the EU does not have a defence policy yet, and we have to think very carefully about whether we want to have an independent European defence policy. Right now transatlantic relations are a bit frosty, but I think that the main defence should be through NATO. It might be strange for a Swede to say that, but I think Sweden should join NATO too. I think we should be a bit careful of developing independent defence capabilities in Europe.

You propose a proportion of MEPs being elected on the basis of transnational lists – why?

I think it is a lovely idea and we should try it, as a complement, as an addition, a small percentage of the total. In the EP, we are more and more representing ideology, rather than nationality, and I think that element should grow. That is one reason. And also because most countries have a proportional system and lots of political parties and since we have a limit on the size of the Parliament, not all these small parties can be represented. This would make it possible for the smaller parties to be represented, to make sure that for example the Green ideology, the Green ideas, can be in the Parliament.

Of course this must be an addition. Today we know that turnout to the EP is very low, in fact it’s shrinking, and it takes time to be well-known in your own country, you would need to be campaigning for a whole mandate to be known all over Europe, and that is not realistic.

Another controversial point: why do you propose the direct election of the President of the Commission?

I thought a lot about that, but I thought this was the most far-going proposal. It was because I wanted to reinforce the legitimacy of the Commission. I am a firm believer in a strong Commission, and I do not support the proposals coming out of the Council, for a president from the Council, because that would weaken the Commission and strengthen the intergovernmental method, and that is in contradiction to what I believe in.

Perhaps there could be a first phase, where the President is chosen by the European Parliament from a group of candidates, perhaps nominated by the Member States. Or you could have a kind of electoral body including people from the EP and also national parliaments, or you could have it chosen by the people, which is the most democratic system. But this brings a conflict between a presidential system and a parliamentary system. What would then be the relationship between the EP and the rest of the Commission? How should Commissioners then be chosen? Should they represent the majority in the EP? And so on. It creates problems with accountability and responsibility.

So my model is not very realistic, and it needs to be developed. But I like the idea of choosing a common European president, it is a democratic idea, and would encourage people to think about who we really want to run this place.

It is often said that Europe is lacking an identifiable face. What role do you see for the European Parliament in this?

The election of the President by the people would not directly affect the Parliament. But I think that a more realistic version would be for the Parliament to elect its candidate. If I were to rewrite the constitution now I would propose this as a first step. Parliament’s role needs to be strengthened in several ways, because it’s the only directly-elected body, and it’s the only legislative body which acts in total transparency and openness. It is a problem, a democratic problem, that half of the European budget is excluded from the Parliament’s decision-making power. We can make small adjustments, but we cannot really change it, and that is half of the tax-payers’ money. Of course it would create lots of extra burdens for us if we were to handle that money, but as a principle it is undemocratic.

I would like to see a Parliamentary system which is bicameral, where the Council when it meets as legislators is transformed into a kind of Senate, or upper chamber or whatever. But to make visible what is happening, because at the moment it is essentially a bicameral system, where one operates transparently and is elected by the people and the other works behind closed doors. That is how you do it in Cuba or North Korea, that is not how you do it in a democratic organisation or a democratic state. The Union is not a state but it is a sort of semi-state. It is not defensible to legislate behind closed doors.

You propose that the Commission should have the power to dissolve the EP.

If you accept that the Commission is elected by the Parliament, then the Commission should have the power to dissolve the Parliament. If there is the need for new elections, and so on – of course this would have to be regulated in detail, and I do not go into that – then it should have the power to dissolve the Parliament and call for new elections. But it depends on which system you choose, if you choose a majority in the Commission, or a parliamentary system. And it has to be regulated not to be abused. But for some years the Parliament has had the possibility to sack the Commission, they only used that once, in fact only threatened to use it. The institutions are basically quite responsible.

On the finances – you do not suggest a power of taxation at the European level.

I think it is reasonable that the fees paid by the governments are transformed into a general European tax, I think that is a likely development. I do not believe in tax harmonisation, and I do not think the European level should have any other taxation powers than to collect taxes for the common budget, but I think this would be a realistic development.

Without a clear link between taxation and the responsibility for spending decisions, the EP has in the past been seen as irresponsible.

Such a change would also increase transparency, because now people do pay money and sometimes they pay more than they get back, but it would be clearer and easier to follow where the money goes. Instead of 1.27% of GDP and some levies on trade, the money would go directly to the European Union and would be accounted for in a transparent way. It would make the institutions more responsible.

How would you like to see this debate developing from now on?

My first goal was to introduce this element to the Swedish debate where it is lacking, we have an extremely poor constitutional debate, and my party has been criticising this at the national level for a number of years. Even if you are not in a process of constant constitutional revision like in Belgium, you should always discuss the tools of democracy, because it’s healthy. I wanted to introduce this element, this was my first purpose.

I hope that the Convention, perhaps after the first six months when they all know each other better, when they have discussed a few things, when papers have been produced, when they feel at home and quite independent, that they will also start in the autumn to try to see if it is possible to draft a Constitution; even if not a full constitution, a constitutional draft, a skeleton of how it could be drafted. It might not be possible to finish by January or March next year, but to point out that this is what they want to do. It has been done before, even if you do not have an ambitious new Constitution. For example there is the proposal from Florence, they did not change anything, but they showed that it is possible. If you read those 94 paragraphs or articles, that could be used as a first basis. It would make things clearer. From this you could move onto more important question, such as the transparency of the Council. This has to be dealt with – if nothing else, this has to be tackled.

These last months a lot of papers have been on the ESDP, on the need for the EU to be stronger in that area, and there is a pressure from the citizens that the EU should do more, more to help a peace process in the Middle East, more to be an effective global actor, to try to contribute to diminish inequalities in the world, and be more active in its neighboroughing area to promote peace, democracy, and so on. You have to give the EU the tools, you ca not have two or three countries vetoing all the time, you have to find the decision-making procedures and mechanisms to make it possible. This is a question that then demands institutional change, and it is a difficult one, but everyone agrees it is one of the most important, and from that one can start.

- How much support do you see for a Constitution in the Convention at the moment?

It’s not very clear. I would say that most of them, from reading their speeches, are in favour of some sort of constitutional document, but they mean different things by that.

If you look at Eurostat there is a 70% support among the people of Europe for a Constitution, a very high percentage, so this is expected. We cannot come out again with a new complicated treaty with just paragraphs referring to numbers and which is totally unreadable. We ca not give this to the citizens and say this is what came out of the Convention, we will make a fool of ourselves and we will never have a Convention again, and people will totally turn their back against it. Now, if we are going to enlarge this Union, if we want to develop economic cooperation and the euro, if we want to develop a strong CFSP, we also have to change. We cannot go on adding and pretending that we are still only six members. We will be almost thirty members, with different histories and priorities. So we have to get this house in order. If we do fail to have the citizens’ support, then we can all go home. And I care too much about Europe to want it to fail.

Interview conducted by Alison Weston
Thursday 30 May 2002