Bertie Ahern
Question:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with Chancellor Vranitzky of Austria. [10807/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meeting with Austrian Chancellor.
Mary Harney
Question:2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Austrian Chancellor, Franz Vranitzky, on Monday, 20 May 1996. [10844/96]
Bertie Ahern
Question:3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with members of his EU's Economic and Social Committee. [11079/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, together.
I met the Chancellor of Austria, Dr. Franz Vranitzky on Monday 20 May. The meeting was a most useful one in the context of preparations for Ireland's presidency of the EU. Our discussions were wide-ranging covering, in particular, the possible agenda for the Florence European Council, the Irish presidency of the European Union, likely developments at the Intergovernmental Conference, the security situation in Europe, including the situation in former Yugoslavia, and the future direction of the European Union's common foreign and security policy.
The meeting helped to highlight the broad similarity of the position of both Austria and Ireland in regard to the Intergovernmental Conference and, in particular, to the future evolution of the EU's common foreign and security policy.
I had a short meeting with Mr. Carlos Ferrer, President of the Economic and Social Committee of the EU on Tuesday 21 May. Mr. Ferrer appraised me of the work of the ESC and its hopes for the Intergovernmental Conference. I assured Mr. Ferrer that Ireland fully appreciates the value of the ESC's contribution to the European Union and that it would give the committee's proposals in relation to the Intergovernmental Conference the fullest consideration.
Did the Taoiseach discuss Austria's participation in economic and monetary union with its Chancellor? Was the Austrian Chancellor concerned that the Italians may not join, a matter of grave concern in that region at present?
The answer to both questions is in the affirmative; we did discuss it.
Did the Taoiseach discuss the Western European Union with the Chancellor? Would it be correct to say that both the Chancellor and Taoiseach were in agreement that the Western European Union should remain a separate entity within the European Union after the Intergovernmental Conference?
The answer to the first part of the question is yes, we discussed the Western European Union. We discussed the future connection of the Western European Union and the European Union in general terms, but more specifically we discussed our agreement on the development of the Western European Union to allow observer members, like Ireland and Austria, to participate in the Petersberg Tasks, various peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks it is envisaged the Western European Union might fulfil.
Were the Taoiseach and the Chancellor at one on foreign and security policy and, if not, will the Taoiseach indicate what differences emerged between them on that issue?
It would not be normal to go through the substance of a confidential meeting — as all meetings at this level are — indicating points of agreement and disagreement.
Will the Taoiseach indicate the position in broad terms?
We had a wide identity of views on many topics. There are subjects on which the Austrians have more expertise and interest and which we discussed, such as the positions in Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia. We have a fairly strong identity of views on institutional arrangements for foreign policy vis-à-vis in particular the granting of a planning and analysis capacity to the union as a means of support for the effective pursuit of a common foreign and security policy by the union as it is considered there is a deficiency in that regard in the current arrangements.
Did the Taoiseach discuss Slovenia's application for membership of the union as one of the first potential countries to be included in an enlarged union and, if so, does Ireland support its application? When this matter is discussed during our Presidency of the European Union would we be prepared to reject the property and territorial issues put forward by the Italians which have created great difficulties for Slovenia?
Rather than taking sides between a member state of the union, Italy, and a potential applicant state, Slovenia, Ireland's role would be better served by seeking to have these matters resolved by agreement rather than, as the Deputy suggested, taking sides against Italy.
Let us not forget that a time limit of 30 minutes applies to questions to the Taoiseach on Tuesdays.
Will the Taoiseach indicate Ireland's position regarding Slovenia's application?
There is an outstanding problem regarding Slovenia's application concerning Italian property rights in Slovenia which predate the break up of the former Yugoslavia. To date various efforts have been made to resolve them without success. The best approach is to seek a negotiated agreement. The Tánaiste had a recent meeting with the Slovene Foreign Minister on the matter and the Irish Presidency will do all that is necessary and appropriate to assist in resolving these difficulties to ensure there will not be any obstacle of that nature in the way of consideration of a possible Slovene application for membership of the union.
Will the Taoiseach indicate if the issue of the British attitude towards the workings of the EU arose? Did the question of the two Governments' attitude towards the BSE issue arise?
The answer is yes to both questions.
What was done about it? What about the transparency that is supposed to be like a pane of glass?
It is frosted.