Reply to questions from Jan Kreutz, Vice-President of JEF Europe (jan.kreutz@jef-europe.net)

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

The Convention is tackling a hugely challenging task confidently and competently. We're looking at the fundamental issues at the heart of how Europe will work. It’s clear that an efficient EU with 25 Member States will need strengthened institutions. I think the Convention is doing a very good job of preparing the ground for each Member State to decide on Europe's future at the next Intergovernmental Conference.

We are taking the Convention very seriously. As the Prime Minister Tony Blair said, “now is a moment in time when isolation from decision-making is not just pointless but immensely damaging. There are debates here that have to be won.”

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

In my view the five most important points that a Constitution should include are:

· What the EU is – a union of sovereign states who have decided to pool some of that sovereignty, in order to secure peace and prosperity and liberty in Europe and the wider world.
· The EU’s mission, in simple language.
· The role and responsibilities of the union’s institutions.
· The clear distinction between supranational and national competencies.
· The core policies the EU needs to fulfil its mission.

3. What role does the Convention play in the political agenda of the British Government?

At the top of this Government’s agenda is delivery, at both the national and the European level. This is one of the Convention’s key themes. The benefits of the EU should be clearly visible to its citizens. I said in the Convention that I want the EU to be doing the things people care about, that are relevant to their daily lives rather than of interest to those who work or meet in Brussels.

4. What do you think about Valéry Giscard's proposed structure for the future European Constitution? Is it a neutral summary of the Convention discussions or does it already take a position in favour of a federal or an intergovernmental European Union?

The Constitutional text currently being debated is Giscard’s first draft. As such, it must give something to everyone. There is much in it with which we can agree, and much which can be built on. But it is only an outline – we’re far from the end of the story.

5. What is your opinion of the contribution of the European Commission to the Convention and the so-called Penelope paper of Mr. Prodi, which were both published at the beginning of December?

There are some very good points in Commission paper, such as the welcome inclusion of the exit clause. We wouldn’t have seen this in a Commission paper 10 years ago and it shows how the debate is moving in the EU. The ‘Penelope paper’ is also an impressive piece of drafting. But I doubt there’ll be much support for some of the Commission’s ideas among European governments; for example, harmonising tax across the EU is a non-starter.

6. With three common French-German proposals on Foreign and Security policy, on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and on economic governance, it seems that the Franco-German engine has restarted. Do you think this will weaken the position of the United Kingdom in the Convention?

The Franco-German ideas are a welcome contribution to the debate. We are studying them seriously. Many of them are similar to those Tony Blair and I have proposed – particularly a full-time President of the European Council. Such a role would mean better delivery, since the rotation system prevents a long-term strategy, and will increase Europe’s global influence.

Equally, some of the Franco-German ideas aren’t UK policy. This is inevitable – there are many different points of view. We want as many ideas as possible thrown into the pot.

7. One of the most controversial debates in the Convention is that of the future President of the Union. The United Kingdom has proposed to have an elected President of the European Council, a proposal which has not yet received majority support within the Convention. What do you think of the alternative proposal of a president with a dual mandate, chairing the European Council meetings and being president of the European Commission?

There is a developing consensus around the idea of a full-time Chair or President of the Council – for example, it is supported by Persson, Aznar and Berlusconi. A full-time Council President would give better delivery than the rotating system, which prevents a long-term strategy. It would also increase Europe’s global influence.

I don’t support the idea of one person serving as joint Council and Commission President. This would threaten the independence of the Commission and could reduce its importance in favour of the Council. Practically, a joint role would entail a massive workload. I would be concerned at the change to the balance of power if both roles were carried out by one individual.

8. President Giscard d’Estaing has told the press that his plan is for the presidium to formulate the articles of the Constitution and then to submit them to the plenary in three phases, up until the end of March. Do you think this leaves enough space for Convention members to comment and contribute?

Work in the Convention is speeding up and intensifying. But its job is to come up with a range of options, rather than the finished article. The IGC will provide a further opportunity for Member States to feed in their views.

9. The heads of state and government have asked the Convention to present their results before the end of the Greek presidency. This would enable the IGC to take place and come to a conclusion during the Italian presidency during the second half of 2003. Do you think this could in any way endanger a possible British referendum on the Euro?

The decision on a UK euro referendum will be based only on the outcome of the Treasury’s economic assessment. If the conditions are right, a referendum will be held.

10. If there is a clear consensus within the Convention on the final result, what role do you see the IGC playing?

The IGC will not simply rubber-stamp the Convention’s conclusions. A consensus in the Convention would provide a helpful basis for debate at the IGC but it wouldn’t pre-determine the outcome. The role of the IGC is to provide a forum where democratically elected governments will decide on the final Treaty by unanimity.

11. It has been proposed that the Constitution could enter into force if it is ratified by two thirds of the member states, implying that some member states could be left outside. If Britain was unable to ratify the Constitution, would this be the end of Britain's membership in the European Union?

This is one of many proposals that have been floated for discussion in the Convention. But the idea that the Constitution could enter into force if it is ratified by two thirds of the Member States does not have widespread support. The Constitution will be ratified by unanimity. The UK wouldn’t agree to a procedure that could exclude Member States.

12. What do you see as the major remaining hurdles which the Convention must overcome in order to produce a result based on a strong consensus?

It is inevitable that a wide-ranging, long-running debate involving 27 nations will produce some ideas on which we agree and some on which we don’t. And there are issues which are significant for particular Member States. But we all agree on the need to strengthen the EU’s institutions, to make it more efficient, more accountable and better able to deliver results to its citizens. I’m confident that, with these goals in common, we will be able to build a shared vision of the Future of Europe.

Thank you Mr Hain for your interview. We wish you all the best for your future work.