Finnish presidency: The unexpected agenda?

The presidency had a hasty start as the conflict between Lebanon and Israel rapidly escalated in the beginning of July. The EU, often criticised for scattered and disordered foreign policy, managed to take a united and strong position on the issue. The EU took a firm position in the UN Security Council and rapidly facilitated a strong UN peace-keeping operation with up to 15 000 peacekeepers.

Accordingly, the European Movement in Finland stated that the Finnish presidency should advocate for a common Minister for Foreign Affairs, as agreed in the Constitutional Treaty.

United in diversity?

The unity of the foreign policy of EU seemed to be the focal point of the Finnish presidency in general. First the ASEM6 collected the heads of states from European and Asian countries to Helsinki to discuss EU-Asia -relations and the future of the process. Shortly after that EU Heads of State and Government gathered to Lahti for discussions about external relations and especially energy, where the Russian President Mr. Putin was also present.

The results of both meetings seemed to show that the EU leaders were able to present a united front, and there were even talks of the “Lahti spirit” with regard to the successful and constructive spirit of the discussions with Russia.

However, the “Lahti spirit” of October soon turned frosty as the EU-Russia -summit was overshadowed with the meat export dispute between Poland and Russia. Poland’s veto over the partnership agreement proved us how bad Europe needs the constitutional reform.

Much talk, little action?

However, the Finnish presidency was not all talks. Prolonged talks about the EU legislative framework on chemicals were pulled together, as the REACH Regulation was finally adopted. Another breakthrough was achieved, as the services directive was adopted. The new directive will create the world’s largest market in services. Economically this is especially important, as services account for an estimated 70% of the economic activity inside the EU.

The competitiveness of the EU, an issue that the services directive also addresses, was one of the key points of the Finnish presidency agenda. However, the progress towards a more dynamic and competitive Europe seems frustratingly sluggish. Baby steps in the form of policy reforms are overshadowed by the lack of commitment of national parliaments to the principles of the Lisbon process.

And this constitutes to…?

It seems that the Finnish presidency has showed in many ways, how the problems EU is facing all come down to the Constitutional Treaty: the EU needs a single strong voice as a global actor, qualified majority decisions and transparency. However, we must not let the constitutional hangover or “reflection time” to stop the development.

the problems EU is facing all come down to the Constitutional Treaty: the EU needs a single strong voice as a global actor, qualified majority decisions and transparency...

There has been a lot of discussion about the future of the Constitutional Treaty. Some suggest a Sarkozyan mini-constitution; others prefer a new Convention (maybe not lead by a Frenchman this time?).

Finland has held systematic discussions with each member country about their wishes and views about the future of the Constitutional Treaty. As these consultations remain confidential, we do not know the exact nature of the outcomes. However, as the Prime Minister of Finland, internet-dater Matti Vanhanen stated in his speech in the European parliament on the 18th of December, “there is a broad consensus that restarting negotiations from scratch, as if there had been no agreement, is not an option”.

It seems that the conclusion the Finnish presidency has come to with the consultations, is that we need to advocate for a “Constitution plus”. In this updated treaty we should address the focal problems and to re-discuss the biggest disappointments. It goes without saying that opening the package will be disappointing for the 16 (or 18 in 2007) countries that have already ratified the agreement. However, a compromise that will result in a broad Constitution before the 2009 parliamentary elections would give the best possible platform for further development.

Whatever the solution, national parliaments must bear their responsibility to the European citizens. The justification for the development of the Constitution will have a crucial effect on the pace of the process. This is where we must carry our responsibility to emphasize the importance of decisive and swift action to adopt the new Constitution.