Teija Tiilikainen, Jan Store, Eric Hayes, Alexander Stubb

Jan Store

Eric Hayes

Alexander Stubb

Jean-Claude Piris

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, Jean-Claude Piris, Teija Tiilikainen

Jan Store, Eric Hayes, Alexander Stubb, Teija Tiilikainen

Ons 29.2.2012 kl. 14:30-17:00

Wanha Satama Conference Centre, Hall F
Pikku Satamakatu 3-5, Helsinki

The common European project has recently been encountering hardships. The economic and
financial crisis has triggered a debate about the degree of mutual solidarity, while old and new
divisions have emerged with respect to preparedness for a deepened political union. At the same
time, the strength of European identity has been tested in most EU countries.

This has also been the case in Finland where the country’s European profile has played a key role
in recent general and presidential elections. The seminar continues this debate about Finland’s
Europeanness: what did Finland expect of its EU membership? What has it gained of it and how far
is it ready to go with it? And what will the direction of Europe be after the crisis has settled?

Welcome remarks

Teija Tiilikainen, Director, the Finnish Institute of International Affairs

Expectations and First Years of EU Membership

Eric Hayes, former Ambassador and Head of the Commission’s Delegation in Helsinki
Jan Store, Ambassador, Finland’s Permanent Representative to the EU

Finland’s EU Policy and the State of the Union 2012

Alexander Stubb,Minister for European Affairs and Foreign Trade
Jean-Claude Piris, Director General (1988-2010), Legal Service, the Council of the EU
Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, Chairwoman of the Grand Committee, Parliament of Finland

Summary of the seminar

The large audience gathered to the 5th annual FIIA Day got to hear both a thorough rendering of Finland’s early years in the EU, the expectations on EU membership, Finland’s role and identity in the Union, and insiders’ analyses of the current crisis, how to see and seize the opportunities involved, moving on and moving beyond the crisis.

In her welcoming remarks, Teija Tiilikainen, the Director of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, set the scene by referring to the two extraordinary political elections in Finland during the past year where the EU has played a major role. She emphasized the importance for the institute to try to understand the global and economic changes and their implications for Finland. The institute even pays considerable attention to the recent past, as shown by the opening of the online archives of Finnish foreign policy (Eilen).

Eric Hayes, former Ambassador and Head of the Commission’s Delegation in Helsinki, took the audience 20 years back in time to the concluding moments of the negotiations on Finnish membership. While Finland was taking a major step into something new, even the EU was struggling with different views on enlargement. Delors’ offer for the EFTA neutrals (the EES or EEA), that originated in an internal reflection seminar in the Commission were first positively welcomed, then deemed insufficient. The pile of applications on the table started to grow. The absorption capacity of the Union and its enlargement policy were bitterly divisive both within the Commission and among the member states. Enlargement should not come at the expense of further integration, it was stated. At that time, the Commission saw that up to 20 members was a number that the Union would be able to handle without fundamental institutional changes.

In general, the EFTA countries were see as enhancing the Union, but neutrality – the N-word – did pose a problem: would the neutrals neutralize the brand new CFSP of the Maastricht Treaty? Finland was the least known and understood of the EFTA countries; political contacts up to mid-1980s had been really limited. This made the Commission report on Finnish membership application a central reference point. Finland was seen through a Nordic and also Danish opt-out prism. In Finland, too, the understanding of the EU was limited. Misunderstandings existed on both sides, and thrived during the referendum campaign in particular: membership was seen as a threat to Nordic welfare, a risk for social dumping, a threat to sovereignty; finally, the “Zhirinovsky factor” played a role in putting forward security arguments.

Jan Store, Ambassador, Finland’s Permanent Representative to the EU referred to Ulf Dinkelspiel’s way of characterizing the three new EU members Sweden, Austria and Finland as having three different approaches to membership – something visible even later on. Finland emphasised the coordination mechanisms that were in place early on, and the importance of informing the Parliament. Trade unions, Store argued, were all supportive of membership, which was an additional strength for Finland. The short-term prospect for membership was to establish Finland as a member country with its own accents on telecommunications, environment, agriculture, research and development among others. There was also the question of whom to ally with. The ally found was the Commission; in time, it became clear that there were no firm alliances, not even with the Nordics (with whom, however, one would land on the same line even without coordination). Mid-term prospects, then, entailed taking the upcoming Intergovernmental Conference seriously, also as a confirmation of membership and a way of ‘making the Union our union’; and being part of an avant-garde with, e.g., the Benelux countries. Long-term prospects, finally, included the preparations for the first Finnish EU presidency – preparations that started very early, too early as some would point out.

In all, Store noted, Finland has been a constructive mainstream member, result rather than opt-out oriented, exactly as foreseen already before the entrance. Or, as Erkki Liikanen has succinctly put it, Finland supports institutions, focuses on the essential, contributes to solving problems, and helps the neighbour in trouble even when its own interests are not involved.

Alexander Stubb, Minister for European Affairs and Foreign Trade, then took the audience not only to today’s situation but indeed beyond the current crisis. He saw three megatrends in the EU now: First, the EU is for the first time facing true global competition. The centre of gravity is moving eastward, away from Europe, at an accelerating pace; the EU has lost leadership and credibility. There is now a clear competition of values; China and Russia have their alternative ways of governance, and the emerging powers display unforeseen self-confidence. The EU no longer sets the rules. Second, economics has become the centre of politics. For emerging powers, trade and economics go first, and foreign policy comes only after; for the EU, this is not the case. Authoritarian countries are more flexible in directing their economies. The EU could benefit from this: after all, it is the biggest economy in the world – if all member states are counted together. Third, the EU reaction to the current situation has been hugely problematic: protectionism and nationalism have grown. The reaction has been that of turning inwards. The Community method is in danger; we see excessive European Council meetings, and a hand-to-mouth policy. Paraphrasing Jean Monnet, Stubb said that now, nothing is possible without Merkel and Sarkozy, and nothing is lasting without the Commission. What should be done, then? Stubb suggested the following measures: first, the EU should keep its model and readjust it so that it is still worth copying elsewhere; perhaps, as written by Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times, Europe is the “life-style superpower”. Its institutional model of pooling sovereignty is worth copying, as is its social market economy and economic liberalism. The EU, secondly, needs to adjust the radar: see even the opportunities and not only the problems, look beyond trade, and be creative. There is need for a more dignified foreign policy, more dialogue, less monologue, and more humbleness. Third, the Union needs to think beyond the bailout. We are wasting a good crisis, Stubb argued: we focus too much on budget deficits as what matters much more is the deficit of ideas.

In the following discussion, the speakers reflected on what they saw as the greatest concerns today, underlying those of loosing faith in the EU and loosing belief in institutions, but also the consequences of the refusal in 1992 of establishing an economic union to complement the monetary union.

Jean-Claude Piris, Director General (1988-2010), Legal Service, the Council of the EU, agreed with the view that the EU no longer is the centre; there is a shortage of faith and entrepreneurship. At the same time, in the current existential crisis the member states need the Union more than before. In Piris’ view, the half-way house that the EMU came to be needs to be redressed. The 1950’s system for six member countries no longer fits reality, and the European Parliament has partially failed to give the EU political legitimacy. As a treaty change is beyond the limits of the possible, the 17 Euro countries should be doing more, following the path of the fiscal compact, through an additional agreement among themselves. This, admittedly, would add to complexity and question democratic legitimacy. But giving more power to national parliaments, represented in Brussels in a parliamentary organ with decision-making powers, would be Piris’ proposal.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, Chairwoman of the Grand Committee, Parliament of Finland, noted that during the first 10 years of Finnish EU membership, the Union was unchallenged in the Finnish Parliament. National positions were almost always reached by consensus. If the Union was first seen as pertaining to the field of diplomacy, it now clearly belongs to the realm of politics. Institutional issues take a lot of time, and the decision-making system is close to incomprehensible. This increases the distance to the Union felt by the citizens. What really has made the Union change, however, has not been its institutional development, but rather its enlargement. In the past two years, news coverage has been on the financial crisis, the rest of the Union going unreported. These have been difficult years, and it is painstaking to explain the need to pay for something done by other countries. “We Finns are serious about the rules”, Kumpula-Natri recalled. The impact on institutions is worrisome; if legality diminishes, then even legitimacy will diminish. Accountability applies also to the EU’s own resources. The benefit of the crisis, however, is the role of the national parliaments that has indeed been strengthened in, e.g., Germany and the Netherlands. The need to recognize the importance of national parliaments is indeed clear. Finally, Kumpula-Natri posed the question of how European Finland is. The government, she argued, is fully committed. The political debate, however, has not been that fruitful.