Spontaneity and strategy. The experience of a live "on-line chat" was "something I'd never had. As it was my first time, I felt spoilt". Valéry Giscard d'Estaing responding to last week's live question time. For two hours he answered questions from Europeans from everywhere, in all the languages of the Union on the objectives and progress made by the Convention. Personally, I was rapidly overwhelmed. I was not up to following the rhythm of the questions and answers. The President of the Convention was overwhelmed himself, the moderator of the "chat on several occasions had to ask the participants to slow down the flow of their questions and interrupt to allow the translators to work, as well as get the teams helping the President to sort out the subjects and sometimes prepare part of the answers.

At the time I was only able to make a number of general observations:

It appeared obvious that some of the groups had organised their contributions in order to highlight a specific subject. For some it was the questions of languages, for others it was the role of the regions in the future Europe, their institutional significance, their direct links with the EU institutions;

The "non-organised" contributors were in the majority, nonetheless. Several of them created the impression of having followed the work of the Convention attentively as they posed questions that were pertinent and well targeted. Others were interested but not very well informed; there were no experts;

A considerable number of questions had nothing to do with the Convention but with Europe in general, and the moderator was obliged to remind them that the subject was the Convention and nothing else;

Overall, the interest was very real and the participants often discussed things amongst themselves, creating the impression that they were delighted to be able to directly question Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. Some indicated this by their choice of expressions such as, "bravo for this live consultation! "Europe now seems less distant". One person who intervened said that he was disappointed and left the "chat line" explaining that, "We are always talking but never do anything, I'm tired of this kind of Europe" (this was not logical because the "chat-line" is just a conversation whereby the public was able to get information and communicate; it wasn't a place for making decisions).

I had to wait for the complete transcript of the chat (around 100 very full pages) in order to draw a few conclusions and assess what new aspects might have arisen in the Presidential answers. I'll try to give a report on the President's declarations and regroup them subject by subject.

Union languages. Throughout the whole of the chat, Albinus and Ivanus argued very fiercely for Latin. For example, "For more than a thousand years, Europe had a common language, Latin. Why has this fact been hidden by the Union authorities? Is there a political reason for it? Why isn't the name of the Union on the Euro notes and coins? We used to be able to read it in Latin like in the past with all European currencies". Simona pointed out (in Latin if you don't mind) that not only the ancient world used to speak and write this language but also, centuries later, Erasmus, Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Linné etc. There was also organised support for the use of Esperanto but the answer was rather abrupt, "Esperanto is not an official language of the Union" (neither is Latin as it happens). Other questions were more politically sensitive. Why, for example, not give Catalan (a language spoken in three countries) official language status, given that Gaelic, which is hardly spoken today, has obtained this status?

The President replied that, "European citizens are very keen to preserve their languages. This is a right that must be respected. But it is necessary to give priority to some of the working languages so that direct dialogues are possible without always having to use translations… The good European model is that everyone can speak their own languages and have a working knowledge of two other Union languages". Later the President added, "linguistic diversity is part of the cultural richness of our Union and we must protect this priceless heritage. How can we imagine having access to Dante in English alone?" This last argument was for me, so irrefutable that I cracked and I won't say another word.

The role and importance of the regions. The questions were as numerous as they were insidious. Here is one of them: "Will the Constitution of the EU allow for the creation of new countries within the EU, for example, a Catalan Republic?" Or the following, "Will historic regions such as Catalonia, Scotland, Flanders, the Basque Country etc. one day have decision-making power inside the EU or will they remain without a voice?" Others wanted to know whether, "An autonomous region or landen could decide to directly federate to Europe if they felt culturally or economically misunderstood in the country to which they belonged?"

Those asking the questions would have undoubtedly been disappointed because the answers were unable to deal in detail with these problems but direct them back to their own national Constitutions. An answer for everyone, "Only countries could join the European Union". But the huge interest in this problem area was clearly borne out.

The "right to secede". In reply to a number of questions, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing subsequently explained his position on the subject. "If a country, following democratic consultation, wants to leave the Union, there is no reason for compelling it to stay. The EU will never be a prison. But if a country decides to leave, it will necessary to draw up an equitable balance sheet of the conditions for its leaving".

The name of the Union. Having pointed out that he had suggested consulting the people on the choice of the four possibilities (European Union, European Community, United States of Europe, United Europe), the President confirmed that he preferred the choice of "United Europe". Faced with a multitude of questions (and objections) he gave an explanation as to his choice, "What counts in a name is the noun rather than the qualitative adjective. That's why it appears to me that United Europe is stronger than European Union because in the future it will be said that, "Europe seeks, Europe wishes, Europe opposes etc."

The institutional structure. The President tended to indicate that the Convention had not yet decided on the structure and function of the institutions but that it had, nonetheless, thought through its line on certain significant aspects. Here is an anthology of his answers: a) "For the instant, I can observe that the half yearly rotational system of the Presidency of the Council has had its day. In a Europe of 25 it won't be realistic". 2) "The advantages of a long-term Presidency will be to give Europe a real face. You know Bush and Putin but do you know Eva, the name of the current President of the Council? Europe needs in today's heavily media-saturated world, a face and a personality that represents its values, c) For its decision-making capability, "the solution consists of generalising the co-decision procedures between Parliament and the Council and at the same time the use of majority qualified voting"; d) "it would be important for MEPs to be elected according to a harmonised law"; e) "The idea of a second chamber composing representatives from the national Parliaments is not supported by the Convention".

But the central point was that of balance of powers: "I consider that the three sides of the institutional triangle (Commission, Council, Parliament) must all be strengthened. The Union overall must be reinforced". In a specific reference to the Commission, "the Commission's role is very well described in the Treaty and there is no question of taking it away. In preserving the exclusive right of initiative, as Members of the Convention were predominantly in favour of this".

President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing? Some of the contributors wanted to know whether Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was a " candidate for the Union Presidency". Their curiosity remained unquenched.

Financing agriculture. I am unaware of any former positions on this subject taken by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and that's why I cite his declaration in extenso, "The quality of life for farmers in the EU is not that high. But the economic and financial system for agricultural production is unsatisfactory. It is necessary to distinguish, I think, between the efficient working of the market - which is a European responsibility - and support concerning the quality of life for farmers - which is a national responsibility". Later on the President says, "Europe, like the USA is caught in a contradiction. They want to prioritise free trade but at the same time, such as in high-income zones, their production would not be competitive if it did not receive some support. The USA has just decided on massive financial support for US agriculture. It is not the right time for the EU to abandon its farmers".

A motto for the Union. The President stated, "We could give Europe a motto. I suggest, "Liberty, justice and solidarity".

Convention procedure. Here follows the President's explanations, "If an obstacle developed, we would make the different protagonists' positions public. Up till now, I have striven to avoid this situation and create a current of consensus. I hope that this method can continue".

The political content of the Union. On many occasions, given the number of questions Valéry Giscard d'Estaing explained that the Convention ought not to define the content of common policies; this would be the task of the institutions. The President stated that, "It is necessary to distinguish between the Union competencies and its action. The content of the policies has not been examined by the Convention as it stands".

Conclusions. One contributor concluded that, "I think that this on-line chat has at least enabled citizens to realise that they need to discuss Europe and want Europe. The Europe of tomorrow will have to let its citizens speak more than is currently the case". Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's concluding remarks were, "It seems to me that this hour and a half has gone like the wind. I am not sure that I have answered all the questions very well but I've tried to get to what's worrying you. This will be helpful for the next step". (F.R.)