Published in Hungarian daily "Világgazdaság" ("World Economy"), 16 February 2004

Q: President, during these days you have received all the nominations from the joining countries to the European Commission. How can you settle the delicate task to use them according to their merit, without complicating the life of the present College?

R. P.: First of all, I would like to note how satisfied I am. When we launched the enlargement project, many believed we attempted the impossible. Yet, we have made it. And we have succeeded by taking the task seriously all through. Yesterday we finally approved the names of the last two commissioners: the Commission will soon welcome ten new members on board. In what arrangement? It is another question. First, we have to examine the situation and the potentials of both the candidates and the current Commission. Not in a manner and not because we want to make exceptions with anybody, but simply in terms of a search for the best and most operable solution. Second, each of the ten new members will join a current commissioner colleague. Should any problem arise, and it seemed necessary, I can still "rotate" them.

Q: Only if it is "necessary" or is it really possible that the new commissioners will move on to a new area from time to time?

R.P.: No, it is not necessary. The time is too short: let us not forget that the so often cited six-month-long period is four month long at best. August does not count because of the summer break, and the new commissioners will be busy with the parliamentary hearings in September. Therefore, we cannot really expect the new members to be too active then either.

Q: Who is to decide the post the new members will hold in first six months? You make proposals or they can request the posts?

R.P.: I have exclusive competence in this regard. But I know their abilities and interests, and I try to distribute work among them in the best possible way.

Q: Has a final list been prepared yet?

R.P.: No. Now that all of the candidates are known, final negotiations will have to take place with the current members of the Commission before the list can be prepared. However, let me stress that we will have ten outstanding new members!

Q.: The Congress of the European People's Party called on all those who formed part of the former political systems' repressive enforcement agencies to refrain from taking up a post in the institutions of the EU. With the candidates of the accession states, had you fears that persons with such a past might end up working with you?

R.P.: Look, I do not care what you used to do as a child. I do not ask what you were doing prior to becoming a journalist. If you are a fine journalist now - then everything is all right. Naturally, if somebody committed a crime, then that person has to be treated accordingly. But that is another question.

Q.: Are you satisfied with the composition? There are two acting foreign ministers and two finance ministers among the candidates - do you need so many?

R.P.: We are always in need of foreign policy and finance experts. Foreign policy can mean several things, not only foreign policy in the narrow sense. It can cover foreign policy, relations with the developing world, and enlargement as well. They will have quite enough work, do not worry. Let me remark that we will welcome at least three women colleagues. This was a criterion, which influenced the decisions as regards composition. And we have fulfilled it!

Furthermore, just consider that the currently joining ten members may end up being the most experienced members as the new Commission starts its term in the autumn. As far as I know, only very few members of the outgoing Commission plan to stay for another term, which their governments endorse as well. Accordingly, the Ten may become, in a way, the token of continuity as of November.

Q.: There can be changes among the new members as well...

R.P.: In theory, it is possible. But in all probability the opposite will happen. Just think that the new European Parliament, incoming in the summer, will hold different opinions than its predecessor's, and will start from scratch when examining the - old and new - commissioner candidates in the autumn. At that point, experience will matter a lot! In truth, we have kept this in mind already when we decided that the incoming Ten should be full-fledged members of the body from the first moment. True, they do not have their own portfolio. However, they have the right to vote! They give opinions and bring decisions just as everybody else.

Q.: How many issues of outstanding importance do you think remains to be treated by the Commission you head?

R.P.: Our work is like a process really. There are always lots of issues on our agenda. Among the big ones, I could refer to the financial perspectives, the preparation of the next common budget for the period after 2007. Another is the question of the kick off of the accession negotiations with Turkey.

Q: What do you think about the operation of the "successor-committee" - will it work with 25 members? Are there so many areas worthy of interest? Last year, during the debates of the Constitutional Convention, you presented an opinion proposing, among others, that the future Committee should be broken down into groups and clusters specialising in various fields should be formed. Do you still believe that this is the best solution?

R.P.: I don't want to interfere with the future decisions the next Commission will get and I want to create a framework in which their decisions can be taken freely. Obviously there are many possible solutions. I personally believe that the "cluster method", put forth in last year's paper, could be a viable option. However, it is also possible that the 25 commissioners will have their own portfolios, naturally after the reorganisation of present structures and competences. Yes, many have expressed their opinion about the dangers inherent in the "unmanageable" size of the Committee. Well, I have also worked with a government of 25-30 members! Just trust us, there is a reasonable solution to everything.

Q: The future of the European Union entails not only the common budget or the question of the new, greater Commission, but also the future of the EU institutions. Do you think the final draft of the future constitution may be finished during the mandate of this Commission?

R.P.: Yes. I feel remorse increasing in the air. The Convention did a good job, after all. It is becoming more widely acknowledged that it is better to have a good constitution than not having a perfect one... The current Irish Presidency is performing well. It is negotiating, negotiating, and negotiating in order to pull off a compromise. Anything can result from this.

Q: In Dublin, at the press conference held at the beginning of the Irish Presidency, you seemed understanding when the issue arose that those who would want to proceed with integration could actually take this step at their own initiative should the constitution not be adopted in the foreseeable future. What would this mean in practice?

R.P.: In Dublin, certain journalists re-interpreted my question on purpose. I did not mean to talk about a two-speed Europe. I meant more like something that the Euro is offering to us. If there is some new development in integration, which not necessarily every member state wants to share at once, but a relevant number of them do - why prevent this? However, and I would like to emphasise this, I reiterated in Dublin as well that this could acquire legitimacy only when it becomes clear and final that the constitution cannot be adopted within reasonable time.

Q: In what areas could this take place? The Euro is in use and the Schengen co-operation has been realised. An agreement has been concluded about possible ways of a closer co-operation in the field defence. What areas have remained?

R.P.: Actually, there are many... For example, there is the cooperation in the field of justice or taxation. These are salient issues. Let us take the latter: we known that certain member states oppose it vehemently, which was the reason why we did not mention it in our proposal on the post-2006 financial perspectives either. However, one day when the conditions will be more auspicious, something similar will be realised, since this is what follows from the logic of the process.

Q.: According to certain opinions, the EU has already moved toward being a kind of superstate, and would go on in that direction with the new constitution...

R.P.: With a budget amounting to 1.24% of the GDP?! A superstate?! It is when this accusation emerges that it turns out how little people know. Every time I give a lecture, for example at my alma mater, and ask the students about the budget, nobody says less than 5% ever. They are more likely to guess it is 20-25%. But to have somebody say 1.24%? This just never happens. Naturally, much can be achieved from this much too. But to build a superstate?

Q: At the Convention, during the constitutional debates Hungary has been almost the only country to raise the question of national minorities repeatedly at various fora. Some believe that the Hungarians, by keeping the issue on the agenda, carry a historical inheritance of theirs into the European Union, which could eventually turn into a burden. To cite a popular formula: Does Hungary constitute part of the problem or the solution?

R.P.: That of the solution. Considering for how long this issue was taken as non-existent and how far it has come, we can see a great leap ahead. Including your practical measures that established certain funds, and else. We will see how they will work in practice. What counts is the treatment of the problem. For the alternative way to deal with this issue is the one that the Communist era produced: it declared this problem non-existent. Thus, it was "successfully" implemented in everyday politics that, since the question officially did not exist, the problem did not exist either. And yet, it was there indeed.

Q.: So you do not see any "mischief-making" in this...

R.P.: Not at all, since the problem is treated in a civilised manner. At home, in Italy, the minority problem emerges only in one case: in connection to the German speakers in North Tyrol. There was a time, when the situation in those parts caused a lot of problems. Much more serious ones than those you may have been witnessing. There were explosions, incidents, etc.

When Austria became a member of the European Union, the tensions were resolved automatically. Young people started to go to university in Innsbruck or in Bologna. And nobody really gave a thought to who belonged to a minority and who did not. It does not matter any more. And one more thing: the issue of national minorities is important not only because of the Hungarians, but because of the Balkans as well. Some day, which we evidently have not established as yet, those countries may become part of the EU. And this will provide them with a solution for the management and resolution of their historical ethnic conflicts.

Q: Let us return to the events of the near future: in less then three months, the Ten will become members. The likelihood of impressive safeguard-clause measures being adopted against any of them is trifling. Still, what will happen with the possibly arising lags? Is the Commission ready to start misdemeanour proceedings against the new members following May 2?

R.P.: As far as our work is concerned, nothing will change. Furthermore, we will be in a more advantageous situation, since we will have on board the commissioners of the countries concerned in the single issues. One thing is certain: the new members, after their accession, cease to be "new". They will be members. And this is what counts.

Euractiv.com