JEF - I would like to start with a general question – as representative of the Hungarian government, are you happy with the Convention’s work so far?

Balazs - Yes. Definitely yes. It has a very interesting composition of parliamentarians and government representatives, an efficient exchange of views is taking place and I think the first results are very reasonable. We have started drafting the constitutional treaty. I really enjoy the meetings. More particularly I meet other government representatives, we have joint dinners, joint breakfasts, and so on. I think it’s a very good thing and a good way to try to find new solutions.

JEF - What would be your first five priorities for the outcome of the Convention?

Balazs - The first and utmost priority is efficiency, the efficiency of the Union. The second one is simplicity, simplification. The third one: democracy, the equality of member states, and in every respect. The fourth point would be for me the definition of the mixed character of the Union which is a fact of life. Being composed of Community and intergovernmental elements, it is quite natural to shape the coexistence of the Union and member states. And my fifth priority would be an increased international role for the Union

JEF - There has been a long discussion about whether to include the Charter of Fundamental Rights at the beginning of the Constitution. This is not foreseen in the first articles,it is foreseen only as an annex. Are you happy with this solution or would you prefer to see the rights of the citizens put in a more prominent place at the beginning of the Constitution?

Balazs - I think the drafting and the formal criteria are one thing, what is important is that human rights belong to the basic values of our European culture. Coming from Hungary, coming from the colourful heart of Europe, we always like to add that national minorities should be taken into account as well. There are many minorities like children or women or other minorities in society where there is no doubt, where everyone shares the view that they must be protected. But national minorities is a very special issue, because after several divisions of former states after the first world war, the second world war, and the third world war – which was the collapse of the Soviet Empire – many states were divided into pieces. And the number of states also increased, that was the case in the early 1990s as well. This has the result that state and nation are very different things in this part of the world. The founding members of the European Union could easily exchange the two notions, the two words, the nation or state or nation-state. It is not the case in our part of the world. That is why this is important.

JEF - You don’t think that the Charter is weakened if it is in an annex?

Balazs - It is not the place that is important, it is the implementation. It can be put anywhere if member states are taking it seriously.

JEF - The Convention is now starting to discuss the institutions. There have been proposals for a long-term another elected president of European Council. What do you think of that proposal, and do you think this would be in competition with the Commission President?

Balazs - I think we set some basic views at the very start of the Convention that the whole structure should be more efficient, more simple, and more personalised. Of course there should be one face of the European Union, or phone number as Kissinger would like to put it. For me, for the time being, that is the President of the Commission, and I think that if we would like to stress the Community face of the Union, the Community nature, then it would be reasonable enough to give more power to the President of the Commission. In that case we do not need any other President. This is even more so given the converging will in the Convention to create a more powerful foreign minister. Then it would be something similar to the states – when member states come together at summits there are two people sitting at the big table – the prime minister and the minister of foreign affairs. The Union should not have more representatives than a prime minister and a minister of foreign affairs. So for me the President of the Commission is quite enough.

JEF - The role of the European Commission is to defend the European interest, not that of the member states. Could you accept a situation where Commissioners are selected on merit and not only on nationality?

Balazs - I think it is not too much to ask from the Union and the member states to find a common denominator of competence and nationality. Both are important, I would support the idea of giving more emphasis to the competence of the Commissioners as the real selection according to their knowledge and their abilities. At the same time the Commission has a symbolic value, and it is very important especially in times of enlarging the Union that each and every member state finds its Commissioner in the Commission, and that those Commissioners are working together in a collegial spirit for the sake of Europe.

JEF - In the future, perhaps some years down the road, could you imagine a situation where some countries might not have a national Commissioner, or do you think that is unthinkable for the next decades?

Balazs - I think that if the six founding countries are starting by showing an example, others could follow.

JEF - What do you think about the involvement of the applicant countries in the Convention? Do you agree with the opinions of some other Convention members that applicant countries usually speak at the end of the debate, and that the public and the media pay less attention to them?

Balazs - I can not share this view at all. I am a representative of a candidate country and I learned the method of how to get a good place on the list. I do my best to be in the first 15, and I succeed. Its just a technique. One has to be as quick as possible after having got the agenda of the next plenary session. I was several times among, not the very first, but the well-placed speakers. I can see some differences in the activity of the candidates, I have in mind all the 13, and I think that there are some very active countries like Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, and a few others.

JEF - In what way do you think that you and your government will be involved in the IGC following the Convention?

Balazs - This is an important question. There should be the full equality of all the participants, otherwise it is not an intergovernmental conference. There is the Laeken timetable which would put the IGC after enlargement, at the same time there are some ideas to accelerate things. This is perhaps to create an efficient Union, I suppose my government would not oppose it on the condition that we were a full-fledged participant.

JEF - In Hungary you will have a referendum on enlargement – do you think that there should be a national or European referendum on the outcome of the Convention, on the Constitution, as well?

Balazs - I think there should be an approval of the final result, whether that is a ratification by the parliament or a referendum I’m not quite sure. We should think it over very carefully as far as Hungary is concerned, because we will have a fresh referendum on joining the EU and maybe the parliament should take the position on whether the change is not beyond the confidence of the parliament. In that case I think that people should not be asked many times, because we will have a referendum this year on joining the EU, European Parliamentary elections next year, it would be very narrow to have another referendum, maybe it could be combined with the EP elections.

JEF - In both cases – referendum or normal ratification procedure – it is possible that one country will say no. Have you discussed in your government what to do if your country says no, or if another country or countries say no? What do you think would happen?

Balazs - We are excluding the possibility that Hungary says no, we have very good support, opinion polls are taking place quite regularly so we are confident that there will be a strong yes. This is one of the reasons why the government decided to arrange the referendum four days before the signature of the Accession Treaties. We wish with all our heart that other candidate countries have similar success. We would not like to lose any of the candidates.

Concerning the EU 15, we would be more than surprised if any country refused the enlargement, because it would be an important, a decisive change in their foreign policy and in their attitude towards European solidarity.

JEF - Regarding the ratification of the Constitution, what do you think would happen if one or more national parliaments reject the treaty, or if it is rejected in a national referendum? Would you see that as a no to the constitution for all of Europe or would that country have to leave?

Balazs - You mean if the constitutional treaty was refused by one country? Well it would mean that we lose coherence in the Union, a divergence of views, and it would qualify the work of the Convention. It would mean that the Convention could not find a common denominator, and it would be a very low result if this would happen.

Interview conducted by Jan Kreutz, 20 February 2003, Athens