Phil Hogan
Question:2 Mr. Hogan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress, if any, which has been made in regard to the enlargement of the EC.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EC Enlargement.
I have just returned from the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg where, concurrently, EC Ministers held accession conferences with each of the four EFTA applicant countries. These conferences recorded considerable agreement on a range of issues in the enlargement negotiations.
As the Deputy is aware, negotiations which may lead to the enlargement of the European Union in 1995 opened with Austria, Sweden and Finland on 1 February 1993 and with Norway on 5 April. I am happy to report that significant progress has been achieved in the negotiations under the Danish Presidency. The initial, lengthy exercise of the applicant countries and the Commission examining the Community's body of law has been largely completed. During May, preparation of detailed Community positions began on issues put forward by the applicants or requiring negotiation. It was these Community positions, as agreed by the Council, that were put to the four applicants on 8 and 9 June for acceptance or continued negotiation.
Enlargement of the Union is a major policy objective of the Community. The Danish Presidency has advanced the process significantly. Belgium has indicated that enlargement is at the top of its Presidency agenda and that it hopes to be in a position to complete the negotiations by the end of 1993.
Will the Minister agree it is premature to implement the policy of further enlargement of the Community without the existing Twelve having put their house in order in respect of the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty and many outstanding issues that remain to be implemented? Will the Minister indicate to the House what issues are causing difficulty and if they have any implications for this country?
The leaders of the European Community were faced with a choice in the context of the delays in relation to Maastricht which was to put everything on hold until the Maastricht Treaty was ratified by all member states. The decision was that, notwithstanding the difficulties in relation to Maastricht and the Danish case, the British case and the German constitutinal court, work should progress in relation to enlargement. Thus, negotiations have commenced. This was the right decision and it showed the determination of the Community to make progress despite the Maastricht problems. There is a number of issues in relation to agriculture, fisheries and rural development which will form the main part of the negotiations but there will not be any unsurmountable difficulties.
Will the Minister indicate the probable impact on the financing of the Community and any institutional arrangements that might be necessary in the enlargement process?
I cannot give the Deputy line by line details in relation to the impact on institutional arrangements. The provisions are that the applicant countries will apply to join the European Community within the present institutional framework. There is a determination to complete the enlargement as the institutions are at present constituted. If there is to be provision for instutitional reform, that will take place after the enlargement, which is probably the best procedure to follow. Obviously the four countries will be net contributors to the Community, which we should welcome.