JEF: You are representative of the German Bundestag at the Constitutional Convention. How would you comment on the work of the Convention so far?

Meyer: I am optimistic, that we will produce a complete draft constitution until mid June. But I’m a bit irritated as well, that we lost a lot of time especially last year during the general debate, and now we are slowly running out of time. This must be balanced now by a shorter sequence of meetings and strong engagement of all delegates in the finish.

JEF: What are your five most important priorities for the result of the Convention?

Meyer: My first priority is the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the constitution. It should be the first part of it, because a constitution without fundamental rights doesn’t deserve its title.
Second priority must be, to dare more democracy in Europe by the means of this constitution. What Willy Brandt demanded already 1960 for Germany is now even more important for Europe. This includes strengthening the European Parliament as well as enhanced participation of the civil society.
My third priority is a strong position of the basic value solidarity in the constitution. A value determining the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This would for example include solid support for the new EU member states to protect their long borders to the East. But it also means solidarity fighting terrorism or on occasion of natural catastrophes.
Fourth priority – and on purpose not the first – is an effective institutional structure. It has to be clear who is taking which decisions and who can also be held responsible for failures and mistakes. For me it is very important that the intergovernmentalists won’t succeed in this area, strengthening Council and European Council. Both European Parliament and Commission have to be strengthend instead.
And if I may name a fifth priority, it’s the demand not to give up on the conventional concept after this convention has ended. In my view the convention has been a little revolution in the Union. And all future changes to the constitution should be prepared by a convention. It must not be the role of governments to get rid of what the convention has now elaborated. I expect as well, that the Convention’s proposal will be accepted without amendments, because that is the concept of the Convention. The governments are involved in the Convention and can’t claim afterwards, that the drafted proposal isn’t worth anything.

JEF: The German parliament has dealt with the question of the future of Europe for quite some time – also thanks to your initiative. How does the feedback work? In how far is the plenary, and not only the respective committee, debating on the Convention? And how can you transfer these debates into the Convention?

Meyer: To transfer the debate into the Convention is possible mainly because the German parliament has given concrete recommendations for the constitution already last summer. These recommendations have determined my participation in the Convention to a high degree. The German Bundestag will hold a debate on March 13, giving – at least with the votes of the coalition - further developed recommendations, and these will guide me. After all I’m having a permanent duty to report to the Committee on European Affairs as well as to the respective working groups. The Convention is basically a full-time job.

JEF: There is a well-known German-French proposal on the institutional reforms Have you been involved in the elaboration? Or have you at least been informed?

Meyer: No, this concept has been drafted solely by the government. But I’m not disappointed with it, because it gives me a chance to present my own proposals and amendments. I have tried for example to further develop the idea of a double presidency, thinking especially about a Council president with a longer mandate. This president must in my opinion not become a “Super-President”. This can be guaranteed in three ways:
1. The constitution has to include a clear job description for the president of the Council,
2. This president should not have an administrative structure similar to the president of the Commission,
3. He or she should be accompanied by a presidium with advisory and controlling responsibilities. This presidium should in rotation consist of heads of governments of the member states, always representing at least one small member state.

JEF: Often there are demands for a clear separation of responsibilities between Commission and European Council. Where do you see the dividing line?

Meyer: The Commission should be responsible for the regular executive – or in my view we can call it - governmental tasks. The European Council should be responsible for the basic strategic decisions, especially on foreign policy. But that also means that it has to be able to decide on issues in dispute with single majority and not unanimity. That is part of the German-French proposal for the future work of a European Foreign Minister. The European Council should then co-operate in the elaboration of the Commission’s long term programmes. In addition to that, and that is sort of the negative job description, should the European Council restrain from all regular governmental business and refuse to be used as a way out for the Council’s inability to find agreements.

JEF: You are quite active in a small group within the Convention mainly calling for a European referendum on the future constitution. In how far do you see a legal and technical possibility as well as political will for such a referendum? And how should this referendum look like and function?

Meyer: A European referendum will hardly be possible without amendments to the constitutions of several member states, Germany for example, which don’t foresee referenda so far. But I still think it is reasonable to work in that direction. My sense of justice tells me, that even the states without a legal basis for referenda could connect the upcoming elections to the European Parliament with a consultative referendum. I will go forward with this concept, if further going proposals can’t find a majority.

JEF: What will happen in the Convention, if one country says no to the constitution by referendum or normal ratification process. Should this country be excluded from the Union, or would it be more reasonable to aim for a compromise?

Meyer: There are two possible attitudes and it’s still unclear, which one will succeed. The first one says, that a country refusing the constitution, can’t be a member anymore, because the future constitution replaces all former treaties. The opposing view connects to the Bavarian model in the enactment of the German Grundgesetz. Bavaria hasn’t agreed to the constitution, but still belongs to Germany. That would only be possible though with the installation of majority voting. In Germany it was a two-third majority in Bundestag and Bundesrat. Overruling Bavaria didn’t lead to its exclusion, but they are still very proud to be a so called „Freistaat“.

JEF: My last question connects to the time table. Do you think that the Convention is able to stick o the current time table? And do you think, it will swiftly be succeeded by an IGC? Can you name a date, when Europe’s citizens will be able to receive a printed issue of the constitution?

Meyer: The Convention will have and has to be finished by mid June, because both the European Parliament and the national parliaments need some time to discuss the result before the European Council. The European Council will then, still in 2003, have to start their negotiations, in order to find an agreement before the European elections in 2004. I don’t have to add anything about a consultative referendum anymore. But if the usual ratification procedure is being used like in the past, it will last until the end of 2005 to conclude it in all 25 member states.

JEF: Thank you very much fort his interview, Mr. Meyer!

Interview has been conducted on February 21st 2002 by Jan Kreutz, contact jan.kreutz@jef-europe.net.