Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Jun 1993

Vol. 433 No. 2

Written Answers. - Irish Council of the European Movement Recommendations.

John Bruton

Ceist:

37 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will endorse at the next EC summit the recommendation by the Irish Council of the European Movement that a Committee of personal representatives of member States be established to recommend how the European Union should adapt its policies, institutions and functions to the challenge of enlargement.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I understand that the Irish Council of the European Movement published a report on the enlargement of the European Union two weeks ago. This wide-ranging document is a stimulating survey of the questions raised by enlargement and a useful addition to the debate on the future of the European Union.

The Irish Council of the European Movement has made a number of suggestions concerning the enlargement process. It highlights the need to ensure protection of the interests of small countries. It emphasises the role which the new Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs can play in the enlargement debate. It suggests that a committee be established of personal representatives of the member states and the applicant countries with whom enlargement negotiations have been opened. This committee would examine, inter alia, institutional arrangements and voting rights in a larger European Union.

On the general question of institutional change in the context of the forthcoming enlargement there is already an established Community position which was endorsed at the Copenhagen European Council last week. The Lisbon European Council in June 1992 concluded that the enlargement of the Union to include the EFTA applicants was possible on the basis of the institutional provisions contained in the Treaty on European Union and attached declarations. The European Council did not, therefore, envisage any major changes in the institutional framework of the Union. It considered that a Union of 16 or 17 members could be accommodated on the basis of the present institutional structures with necessary adaptations. This is a position we share. It is the basis on which negotiations are now proceeding with Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway.

In the circumstances, the necessity for joint reflection by European Community and applicant representatives on institutional arrangements in the context of the current enlargement is not clear. There may be a need, however, for such a reflection in the context of a wider enlargement, beyond that currently under negotiation, to include other European countries. This is an approach which could be considered, perhaps, in the context of the 1996 review of the Maastricht Treaty. For the present, however, the actual implementation of the Treaty is an urgent priority and a debate now on wider institutional change, apart from that required to accommodate the EFTA applicants, would be premature.

With regard to European Community policies, it is a basic principle of the Community's negotiating stance that theacquis communautaire should be accepted in full by the applicants. Any derogations should be temporary and transition periods kept to an absolute minimum.