Speech by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen at 'European movement in Finland' seminar on 8 May 2006

Tomorrow will mark 56 years since two French thinkers — Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet — came up with the ideas that provided the impetus for deeper European integration with the aim of promoting peace, stability and well-being in Europe. First, the Council of Europe emerged and then, later, the European Union. From the start, it was a close cooperation based on shared values, but also on practical action.

The description still holds good today. Another important feature has been to focus on challenges that any individual national state would have found it impossible to cope with alone. This need for cooperation in Europe is just as topical today as it was over five decades ago. Though the threat of major war has receded — thanks specifically to the cooperation between us — there are other new and multi-faceted challenges to face. Climate change, the spread of infectious diseases, globalisation and energy security are all issues that no country can handle or solve alone. Sustainable solutions can only be joint, European and global.

The results of European cooperation are impressive, but with time, we have come to take them for granted. The end of the Cold War created opportunities for building a new cooperation in Europe. It comprises an internal market, a common currency and many other rights enjoyed by people living within the Union. Young people today take it for granted that they have their pick of all the universities and schools in Europe and a right to work in any country they choose within the European Union. But a generation change is taking place in the European Union, too.

In a way, the European Union is the creation of the generation that experienced the war and the immediate post-war period. The establishment of cooperation was made easier by Germany’s sense of responsibility for recent historical events and its willingness and capability to act as the main financier of further cooperation. This period in time is now behind us. We must develop the Union’s aims and modes of operation to better correspond to the challenges of today and tomorrow.

The Union’s basic strength should be its true cooperation and solidarity. The desire to work together for a better future, and the readiness to give everyone the chance of accessing the well-being that the Union’s wealthier members have already achieved. These values are being increasingly questioned. The idea that defending selfish interests only and viewing the workings of the Union as an internal zero-sum game is the way to win is wrong. European integration has always consisted of cooperation, an arrangement that benefits all the parties involved, what could be called a win-win situation.

Finland’s integration policy has been based specifically on this basic principle throughout our membership. We are ready to give and to receive. We have also underlined the importance of comprehensive participation. We are actively involved in all spheres of Union action. This is the way to exercise most influence, gain most benefits and carry our full responsibility for the issues affecting our continent.

* * *

The European Union must not become an enclave for the well-to-to. The Union should engage in active neighbourly policy and maintain the perspective of European integration also for those countries that are not yet interested in and/or capable of Union membership. The Union must keep the door open to possible enlargement in the future, too. Enlargement has strengthened the Union as such and contributed to stability in Europe.

The great enlargement process that began after the end of the Cold War has been a challenge for prospective member states and the Union alike. Bulgaria and Romania are still in the middle of the preparation process for membership, but even for the countries that are already new members, mutual adjustment still continues in different sectors of society. Success in these endeavours will reinforce economic growth, social welfare, the rule of law and good governance in all EU member states.

* * *

The Union is a part of the world and the European Union must also carry its global responsibility for international peace, security and well-being. We must increase and further our development aid. Development policy should be productive and effective at both the national and the EU level.

One of the Union’s fastest-developing spheres of cooperation is crisis management, both military and civilian. Crisis prevention is another way of carrying responsibility, as is reconstruction of societies after the end of a crisis. The international community, including the UN, expects support from the Union.

In a globalized world, everything is very closely interlinked. Trade policy and even economic policy in general has very considerable impact on different countries and the wellbeing of their peoples. Here, the EU has the advantage of operations on a broad front. The Union can influence the same issue through different channels. The compatibility of the various EU sectors should be reinforced so as to further augment this synergy effect.

* * *

The European Union needs improved effectiveness for its operations and more structural development. The new Constitutional Treaty is a step in the right direction. It is an expression of both realism and a respect for democracy to recognize the negative results in the Dutch and French referendums and to assume that there is no miracle cure. But will there be a solution even after the elections in these countries? Austria is to put forward its assessment of the various alternatives and the debate in the European Council may be very interesting indeed. Many European leaders have already put forward various views on possible changes to the Constitutional Treaty or a new round of negotiations.

How, then do thing stand in Finland? There is broad mutual understanding here between the President, the Government and the majority of Parliament that the Constitutional Treaty would be a distinct improvement on the present situation. Our positive position on the Treaty is surely known to all our EU partners.

In my opinion, it would be unwise to attempt to pressure France and the Netherlands. Anti-EU sentiment is growing in many countries — including in Finland. Excessively radical positions and action may do more harm than good. It is important to retain the sensitive balance of the Constitutional Treaty through these difficult times and to reach new agreement on the document as a whole early next year. During the Finnish Presidency, our job is to keep the process alive and boost its strength.

I have myself pointed out that it would be unrealistic to think that efforts should be made to force the countries that have rejected the Constitutional Treaty to accept it by getting it ratified in as many Member States as possible. Equally, it is impossible to force the countries that have ratified the Treaty to accept a new or revised version.

European integration is not based on force or pressure. Integration can be advanced only as a project of common objectives and interests supported by the Union’s citizens. A new founding treaty for the Union can only be achieved in a just and equal negotiation process.

Parliament has dealt thoroughly with the Government Report on the Constitutional Treaty. The Foreign Affairs Committee proposes for its own part that the Government should produce a proposal for ratification of the Constitutional Treaty.

Our national viewpoint and our European sense of responsibility should guide Finland’s actions regarding the Constitutional Treaty. We should have a realistic view of the effects of our action both in Finland and in Europe. It is important to assess and discuss not only how possible ratification would affect the negotiations concerning the EU Constitutional Treaty, but also the Finns’ confidence in the Union and our own political decision-making system.

* * *

Opinion surveys indicate that Finnish support for the EU and Finnish membership has declined. There are sure to be many reasons. Those most commonly mentioned are the stupid rules and regulations, lack of familiarity with how the Union operates and takes its decisions, the rise in Finland’s net contribution and the constant battle for power within the Union. Some of these opinions are based on fact, some on false illusions or misunderstandings. Being critical about things is all part of democracy, and as such is welcome. I believe it is important to take people’s criticisms and concerns seriously and to try to respond to them.

In my opinion our Union membership has been a good thing for Finland on the whole. One interesting matter which is difficult to measure is the strengthening in our security standing. Our position in the world is more stable and secure as a member of a political-economic body. We also have more influence on our environment and indeed the whole world than we would have outside the Union.

Economic growth during our membership has been considerable. I will just mention a few figures here. In 1995, our first year of Union membership, per capita disposable income in Finland was 9,729 euros. In 2005, the figure was 14,720 euros. So in only 10 years, our disposable income had risen by over 50 per cent!

The fall in interest rates is equally impressive. In 1995, the average rate on loans issued by Finnish banks was 8.04 per cent. In 2005, the figure was 3.43 per cent. In other words, last year we had to pay over 4,500 euros less interest on a loan of a hundred thousand euros to buy a home than we did 10 years ago!

Of course it could be argued that things would have turned out the same even if Finland had not been a member of the EU. However, taking our economic structure into account, achieving the same results would have meant following the same policy as within the Union – but without having any say in things. We can be quite sure about the progress made during membership, and the figures speak for themselves. We can be satisfied with the results.

What about the price of membership? Finland’s net contribution rose considerably as a result of enlargement in 2004. Last year we paid 628 million euros more into the Union treasury than we got out of it. This is only to be expected; the new Union Member States are so very much poorer than we are. So we have a natural responsibility to show solidarity towards new members who are not as wealthy as we are. An enlarged European Union also brings improved potential for our own business sector.

The net sum of 628 million euros means about 120 euros per head of population. I leave it up to you to decide whether that is a little or a lot. Of course I also wish to stress the responsible use of common funds and expect that money should be available for what we consider important purposes in the future.

In addition to the points presented above, some of the benefits of Union membership worth mentioning are the opportunities for studying abroad, cooperation in research and culture, environmental projects, globalization control and many others. Challenges that might be mentioned include the increased importance of competition for people’s wellbeing.

* * *

The Finnish Presidency starting on 1 July is the second in our history. We have a good reputation among the other Member States for our successful first Presidency, and because of our responsible and constructive membership. Advance expectations of the new Presidency are consequently optimistic.

It is our job to continue from where Austria leaves off, and then be ready to pass on the baton for Germany to continue at the end of the year. I believe that Finland will be able both to further the settlement of various current issues and promote development of the EU, in areas such as better regulation of the Union and the goals of good governance.

Great expectations focus on Finland in terms of our expertise on our neighbouring areas. Relations between the Union and Russia and extension of the Northern Dimension are matters where both positive development and tangible decisions can be expected during the Finnish Presidency. The Tampere programme launched during our last Presidency – aiming to make the EU an area of freedom, security and justice – is aptly coming up for mid-term review, so we will have an excellent opportunity to give it fresh impetus.

Looking back on Finland’s first Presidency in 1999, when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs, I would also encourage preparation for the unexpected. At the time, much of our time was taken up by damage control following the earthquake in Turkey, war in Chechnya and the Balkan crisis. The country holding the Presidency has to be prepared to take whatever action is needed.

Next autumn, Finland will be in a position to prove itself. Finland’s aim is to ensure that things run smoothly, fairly and in a good spirit. At the same time, I naturally hope that Finland can show itself to be a country that takes an open and active stance on the future development of the Union, that is able to get important decisions made and that can also help resolve difficult issues.

Finally, I should to say a word of appreciation for the work done by the European Movement in Finland. You have made an important contribution to ensuring that there is debate on European issues in Finland. I wish the organization every possible success now and in the future.