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

I think it is now coming to a point where concrete results will be emerging. For instance, today a group of representatives of 16 countries had their first conference where they presented a common position on the institutions. Some people have nicknamed this the “proposal of the dwarves”, as it is the 16 small countries who have been presenting their views that equality of representation must be maintained. In this view, the European Union should be like the United States, where in the House of Representatives each of the states is represented more or less proportionately so there is a difference between the larger and the smaller, while in the Senate, each state is equally represented regardless of size. This would be the concept for the European Parliament and the Council. But of course it is different in the case of Europe because of the specificity of the European Union which is the Community method, particularly the role of the European Commission. That is why this group calls itself the fans of the Community Method.

2. Do you see the European Commission and European Parliament as allies in this group? If you as small countries worked together with the European Parliament and the Commission in the Convention on these demands, could you have a broad majority in favour of these demands?

I think that is absolutely the case - the consensus is large enough, because besides the sixteen countries the Benelux countries also have more or less the same approach. Although it is a large country Poland is also more or less supportive of this position. Many members of the European Parliament of course agree. So I think there is a consensus.

3. There is also the German Parliament and even the German government - which is the biggest country in the European Union - but is also a friend of the Community method. Do you think they could also join the your group as friends of the community method? Or do they have divergent views?

There are some issues on which they do not agree due to the Franco-German axis. There was an attempt to promote some of the French ideas, such as the idea of a permanent Presidency of the Council. Joschka Fischer definitely gave the impression that he did not quite agree with the French, but that his goal was to get them to agree that the President of the Commission should be elected by the European Parliament. We are not excluding the idea that this election could be by a special electoral college in which members of national parliaments would also be involved, although we are against the idea of the Congress of the People, creating a new kind of institution. But it is possible to have an electronic way of voting that would be better than an electoral college.

4. Would you prefer an electoral college system to the idea of having the European Parliament electing the President of the Commission and having the Council approving this decision?

The government of Malta does prefer the electoral college idea, as do quite a number, and perhaps a majority, of the group of 16. There are of course those in the group that support the idea that the European Parliament should elect the President of the Commission directly.

5. You talked about the institutional questions. I would like to ask you which would be your five main priorities for the outcome of the Convention?

The first two are the ones we have already alluded to. First is that the principle of the equality of the states should be preserved. The expression of that would be to have one Commissioner per country. The second priority is to keep the rotating Presidency. I would like to point out that a having a President of the European Council - even if he was from one of the small countries - as people like to point out, would mean that it would be a position of immense prestige. But it would not involve the whole of each country in the way the present rotation system does. It is only with a rotating presidency that the whole population, the ministries, and the civil service, come to feel that they own and share the ownership of the Union. We would not like to see this given up. However we would also not like to see this eclipse the President of the Commission who should increasingly be seen as Mr Europe. The third priority is to be favour of an elected President of the Commission, elected by an electoral college. In addition, perhaps from a more special point of view, we feel very strongly about keeping the principle of territorial cohesion, especially as this affects coastal and marine areas. We think that the EU has not been giving sufficient importance to the marine dimension.

6. Would you link that to the structural funds of the Union? Do you think that the new member states need more funds?

It would also mean that, as it happens that the coastal areas are peripheral areas. We would like the importance of these regions to be more recognised as they are the interface between the European Union and the rest of the world. They are the point of conjunction and I link territorial cohesion with territorial security: these are the border areas of the Union and that is why they require special attention and I think special funding. In addition, given the existing law of the sea, it is important that the resources of the sea are recognised and managed rationally on a European basis. This is one of the areas where there is most advantage to a European approach.

7. And a fifth priority?

I think it would be what I would regard as placing more weight on the dialogue with civil society. I think that the EU still suffers in the eyes of many people as being primarily an economic union, while I think there should be a shift to show that more importance is given to certain values. The European Union must not be seen as a fortress but must instead be seen as a different form of globalisation.

8. You talked about civil society. You just had a referendum in Malta in which a small majority of the citizens voted in favour of joining the Union. Do you think that this referendum will have a crucial impact on citizens’ views, also on the Future of Europe? Do you think you bring more people into that debate, or is the Convention taking place without the interest of the citizens in Malta?

No, there is very great interest among the citizens, even from those who are opposed to the European Union, from the Eurosceptics. This interest is largely because of issues such as the debate about giving a privileged relationship to neighboroughing countries of the Union, an article on which was presented to the Convention today.

9. And Maltese citizens see that as a crucial issue?

In the Mediterranean this is of course very important, especially as we speak an Arabic language and we are very close to the African shore. We are further south than Tunis, from a geographical point of view. In our history we were part of the Arab world for centuries. That of course means that we attach great importance to the Mediterranean area and to the integration of the Southern Mediterranean into Europe. However the Eurosceptics also feel that they would be given a status in terms of this article - a far weaker option than full membership.

10. Talking about the Convention process itself: there have been a lot of discussions about the timetable. Do you think that the Convention will be able to come up with a sufficient and satisfactory result by the end of June? Or do you think more time will be needed?

As has been said, I think that we really must aim to finish by June, because otherwise we will not finish. I think it is less a question of a few weeks or a few months, than what we cannot agree upon now - especially the foreign policy and defence issues.

11. Do you think that this means that we will see an agreement by the end of June, which includes nothing on foreign and defence policy? Or will there be a really weak solution in these areas?

I think it will have a weak solution that will maintain the status quo, essentially because the UK refuses to budge from an intergovernmental position, refuses to allow any room for the Commission.

12. So maybe you would leave it to another Convention in five to ten years to solve this problem of foreign and security policy?

No, I don’t think so, on the contrary in fact. There is a very big opportunity now after the Iraq war for Europe to put its house in order, because I think that the popular demand for this to be done is very great. It is precisely the experience of the ineffectiveness of Europe vis-a-vis the Iraq situation that has made it clear that the world really needs Europe to be able to have a policy on these issues.

13. There is a big discussion on how to ratify the Constitution or the Treaty for the Constitution. You have just had a referendum and it was extremely difficult for the government to win that referendum. Is the Maltese government in favour of having a referendum on the result of the Convention or moreover on the result of the IGC, or should we use the present ratification procedures?

Yes, the Maltese government is very much in favour of the referendum method in principle. However it may be imposing too big a strain on the citizens of Malta to have another referendum so soon after the one that has already been held, because the holding of a referendum in Malta where political involvement is very intense tends to be almost a traumatic experience. Because the opposition did not recognise the results of the first referendum, the elections that are now being held are a sort of re-run of the referendum, and to have a third re-run within a short period may not be a good thing for general popular acceptance of the referendum method. But there is certainly the view within the Maltese government that a referendum system should be built-in to the European democratic system.

14. This raises one crucial question: if a certain country or a small group of countries does not manage to ratify the Constitution, for example by not winning a referendum, should the others be allowed to go ahead anyway and that these individual countries not ratifying will have to use the exit clause and leave the European Union? Do you think that since the main parties in Malta have different opinions on the European Union and since a change of government is possible, Malta could be one of the first countries to use that exit clause as soon as it exists?

Well, there was a meeting of the government representatives in which this issue was discussed. On the whole, people do not like the exit clause. Already the procedure for a withdrawal from treaties is stipulated in the Geneva Convention. Apparently if there is to be an exit clause, and it seems one will be presented, the point of it would be to establish conditions regulating the exit, because certain obligations will have been undertaken, even money spent. So far, the only territory which has left has exited with a premium, almost a golden handshake, which is pretty paradoxical, so presumably the provisions regulating exit will tend rather to make it onerous and burdensome for a country to exit and therefore to intended to discourage this. As for Malta, I do not think that there is a question of exiting as the election will be before the signature of the Accession Treaty in Athens. If the opposition party were to win the election, they probably will not sign. So the issue will not arise in the case of Malta. If the opposition loses, then we will have another battle over ratification, but at that stage I do not think that there is very much chance of the people supporting withdrawal when we will be as far advanced as we will be at that stage.

Interview conducted by Jan Kreutz, jan.kreutz@jef-europe.net