Brussels, 19/02/2002 (Agence Europe) - German Social Democrat Klaus Hänsch, who represents the European Parliament with Partido Popular member Inigo Mendez de Vigo at the Presidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe, told several journalists on Tuesday that he had greatly and apparently successfully insisted that the solemn opening of the Convention, on 28 February, should be followed on 1 March by a real working session.
Furthermore, the former President of the European Parliament stressed the "directing and proposing" role of the Presidium. He confirmed that, in his view, it would be a "mistake" to systematically structure the activity of the Convention into working groups or committees. How can the representatives of governments or national parliaments, for example, divide themselves up into such groups?, he mainly asked. This would lead to "atomisation", said Mr Hänsch. He recognised, however, that it will no doubt be necessary to set working groups in place on specific issues (such as the way to include the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, which is, it seems, a "highly complicated" exercise, he commented). President Giscard d'Estaing imagines three phases - listening, analysis and proposal, - recalled Mr Hänsch, who added: "I doubt it will work quite like that". In his view, while it is obvious that it will be necessary to begin with a "listening phase", the Convention must not allow itself to be dragged into "three months of general dialogue". On the contrary, what is needed is to "steer" the work and ask oneself "what do we want?" insisted Mr Hänsch.
In his view, there are four possibilities, among which he chooses the fourth. These possibilities are: (1) adopt a "series of recommendations" of the type "the EU should ….", which could make the Convention slide into a "Wonderland" of all desires; (2) propose amendments to the Treaty of Nice, but it is not worth calling a Convention limited to that; (3) adopt a majority text and a minority text, a "trap" against which Mr Hänsch gives a clear warning: this would be a "Bonde alternative" (alluding to the Danish president of the Group of a Europe of Democracies and Diversities), which could perhaps table on 10% support, but the discussion will be more on this than on what the majority wants. According to Mr Hänsch, such an approach could attract some federalists hoping to draft a "federalist project proper", but the result would be that the IGC would finally adopt neither alternative; (4) adopt, which is the only valid alternative, a "coherent text of Treaty" benefiting from the widest possible consensus, which does not mean "unanimity". Would this text be a Constitution? Mr Hänsch says that, at this stage, he does not know, but specifies: "I would like one, as would the large majority" of MEPs, and the German government would be delighted, as would a series of other governments, but not all. In his view, therefore, the "categorical imperative" for the Convention, is to work "as if" it were drafting a Constitution.
In answer to questions put to him, Mr Hänsch said he of course felt the minorities have the right to express their views and should not be prevented from doing so, but that the proposals which are both majority and minority should not come from the Convention itself. In his view, the Convention should be abler to formulate different solutions, but without a proposal and not several "projects".
Can the Convention envisage that some Member States go forward in a differentiated manner in certain specific areas?. If there is consensus within the Convention concerning well-defined areas, "why not", comments Klaus Hänsch, who, however, pounds out: "it would be wrong for us to make a text on a 'core' Europe and a 'margin' Europe (…). The Convention would fail".
Finally, Mr Hänsch pointed out that the members of the Convention would use experts for drafting their project. Yes, the budget is there to do so, he replied to a question (see below). He also stressed that the Convention does not start from zero, and mainly cited the work on the consolidation of the treaties carried out by the European University Institute of Florence.
If the Convention is a success, for the first time MEPs and national MPs will have worked together to develop a project for Europe as a whole, which is the first significant step that takes us away from the intergovernmental method for revision of the treaties, Mr Hänsch also noted.