Prime Minister Vanhanen on the results of the Finnish EU Presidency

(unofficial translation - subject to changes)

Mr President,
Honourable Members,

It is a pleasure for me to be here once again to talk with you in my capacity as President of the European Council. The meeting of the European Council during Finland’s Presidency was held in Brussels on 14 and 15 December. Today I would like to report to you on the results of our meeting. As Finland’s six-month Council Presidency draws to a close, I also want to tell you what Finland has done to move the Union forward over the past half year.

Last Thursday at the European Council we offered Josep Borrell our sincere thanks for all that he has done as President of Parliament, now that his term of office is drawing to a close. I would like to thank him here once again for his dedicated efforts for the good of Europe. Mr President, it has been a pleasure working with you. We have achieved a great many good results, for which I owe you many thanks. Your work has been much appreciated.

I also want to thank the European Parliament for all its support and hard work. Together, we have chalked up some significant achievements. The EU legislative framework on chemicals, the Reach Regulation, has finally been adopted. Consumers and business have both been waiting for this. We also managed to get the Services Directive adopted, thus creating the world’s largest market in services. And the seventh Framework Programme for Research lays the foundations for Europe's future competitiveness.

At the start of the Finnish Presidency, I said that the European Parliament was clearly becoming the place where thorny, complex problems were tackled and sound European solutions were found. That is still my firm belief and today I want to thank Parliament for its good cooperation and express my appreciation for its work. In an increasingly politicised Europe, Parliament is more important than ever.

Honourable Members,

The main themes at the December European Council were the EU’s enlargement policy, justice and home affairs and consolidation of the results of the informal summit in Lahti. Since the conclusions of the European Council are already available to you, I am not going to explain them in any great detail. I just want to highlight a few of the most crucial policy decisions.

The European Council conducted a thorough and wide-ranging discussion on the EU’s policy on enlargement, in line with the mandate given to it by the June European Council. If there is one basic point that bears repeating, it is that the Union’s enlargement policy has been a huge success. The Union has succeeded in uniting Europe and overcoming the divisions of the Cold War. Today, the EU is a proud and close union of 25 Member States – 27 from the beginning of next year. It is a pleasure to welcome Bulgaria and Romania to our European family.

Turkey’s membership was not on the agenda for the European Council. The decisions concerning Turkey’s accession process were taken at the General Affairs and External Relations Council preceding the European Council meeting. The EU is capable of making decisions. During its Presidency, Finland tried to find solutions that would lead to implementation of the Protocol to the Ankara Agreement and direct trade with north Cyprus. However, we were unsuccessful and so we were forced to take measures with regard to Turkey. The situation was clear: Turkey did not honour its commitments and that has consequences. But I want to stress that Turkey’s future is in the European Union. Turkey’s accession process did not grind to a halt during the Finnish Presidency, nor was it shunted into a siding. And there was no question of the much predicted derailment. The process may have slowed down for a while but the final destination is unchanged.

The outcome of the European Council is that the Union is still open to new members. Enlargement will continue and those applicants that meet the conditions set by the Union will be able to join. This prospect of membership – the knowledge that the Union is open to new members – is essential to stability in Europe; it encourages reform in neighbouring countries, as they progress along the European path. This incentive must not be withdrawn. One of the objectives the Finnish Presidency set itself was to keep the EU's enlargement policy open – not to close the door on deserving applicants. We succeeded. An open Union growing in strength: that is our future.

On the basis of the discussions at the European Council we can say clearly that the Western Balkans' membership prospects are real. The region's future clearly lies in the EU. That is of fundamental importance for us.

At the same time, though, we have to make sure our enlargement policy is properly delineated. The corollary to openness is rigorous application of the conditions. There are no short-cuts to EU membership. Membership is possible only when the membership criteria have been met.

It was important that there was no discussion of the limits to enlargement. There is simply no place for them. No artificial limits should be set. The proper limits are based not on geography but on values. The construction of Europe is a work in progress while there are still democratic black holes like Belarus so close by. A disgrace to Europe. There should not be any such places left in Europe.

Mr President,

At the European Council, I presented an assessment of the situation regarding the Constitutional Treaty. During our Presidency, we held systematic discussions with all Member States concerning the Constitutional Treaty. I shan’t go into detail on the Member States’ positions, as we are bound by the confidential nature of the talks but I do want to give you an outline of the picture that emerged in the course of the consultations.

The first thing to mention is the change in atmosphere that took place during our Presidency. When it started, people were still in a bit of a dream world. No one really wanted to give it active consideration. Now people in the Member States have started to think actively about the future and many take the view that the Constitutional Treaty was actually a well thought-out and rather effective package. But the dilemma is this: the treaty cannot be put before the Member States that rejected it in exactly the same form as before and yet, for all that, it is a well-balanced package. Upsetting the balance would cause more problems than it would solve. For that reason there is a broad consensus that restarting negotiations from scratch, as if there had been no agreement, is not an option.

The institutional provisions in the Constitutional Treaty in particular are the result of long negotiation and hard thinking. It is difficult to reopen the negotiations without creating new problems. Furthermore, it is my own personal opinion that picking the treaty apart would be no more than an apparent solution at best. For instance we cannot separate Part I from Part III: the competences of the Union and of the Member States need to be clearly defined. And then Part II of the Constitutional Treaty sets out the fundamental values on which the Union is based. I don’t see how we could disregard those.

So far, 16 Member States have ratified the Constitutional Treaty. At the start of the New Year, that number will grow to 18, with Bulgaria and Romania. However, this is not a question that can be resolved by force of numbers. The Constitutional Treaty will not enter into force unless it is endorsed by all 27 Member States. It would seem to make sense to try and find a solution before 2009 when the next elections to the European Parliament are held and a new Commission is appointed.

But the fact remains that the Constitutional Treaty is still on hold and we will be handing the baton on to Germany. We are looking to the German Presidency to take this difficult issue forward. At the same time, though, it is important that we use whatever practical means we can to push ahead with European cooperation. Justice and home affairs are one particularly important example. Our citizens expect concrete action to improve security and justice.

But justice and home affairs is beset by a serious problem. The need for unanimity prevents genuine progress from being made on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. And that kind of cooperation is important to our citizens. They are entitled to expect more effective joint action in improving security and combating crime. At present, however, decisions on cooperation are either watered down or not made at all, as we saw just recently with regard to the transfer of sentenced persons. The need for unanimity in justice and home affairs is a real barrier that stops us from making genuine progress.

However, we do have a procedure that would enable us to make decisions on justice and home affairs more effectively. That procedure is the “passerelle”, provided for by Article 42, which allows us to decide, unanimously, to switch to qualified-majority voting. The Finnish Presidency was very eager to make use of this possibility but at the September meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Tampere it became clear that a number of Member States are opposed to it. And so that avenue is closed to us.

That is why I welcome the fact that, in spite of everything, the European Council sent an unequivocal message that more effective decision-making on justice and home affairs is important, along with the principles set out in the Constitutional Treaty, and that means switching to qualified majority voting. That is something of a breakthrough and we should welcome it. Future Presidencies should honour that decision.

In this connection, I would say that, if there was one thing that I could change in the Union here and now – speaking as President of the Council – it would be to increase the number of decisions taken by qualified majority. It is without question the most effective, the fairest and indeed the best way of making good decisions. The unanimity requirement does not serve European common interest at all well in relation to any but the most critical of matters.

The European Council held in-depth discussions on the Union's policy on migration. In a spirit of solidarity, we all remember the problems that the Mediterranean Member States faced in the summer. The Finnish Presidency actively addressed the challenge of illegal immigration and the matter was discussed at the informal summit in Lahti in October. Now, at the December meeting of the European Council, we agreed on a comprehensive approach to both legal and illegal migration and we noted what a complex issue this is. Immigration is not just, and not even primarily, a question of better border supervision. The really crucial things are events in the country of departure, transit and an orderly immigration policy, which the EU so badly needs on account of its own aging population. Europe is not an island shut off from the outside world.

The European Council also confirmed the important results of the informal summit in Lahti. We all agree that Europe needs a more focused innovation policy. We cannot maintain our current level of prosperity unless we stay genuinely competitive and cultivate our skills as the basis for success. During the Finnish Presidency, innovation was put at the very centre of competition policy. Promoting innovation must be an integral part of the EU’s competition strategy. Now that the groundwork has been done, it is for the spring European Council to formulate some forward-looking innovation-policy guidelines.

Another essential task, if we are to safeguard sustainable economic growth and secure our competitive position, is to agree on common energy policy goals and engage in wide-ranging, global cooperation to manage climate change. These themes have attracted a growing amount of attention during the Finnish Presidency. At the same time, they were among the most important areas of cooperation discussed this autumn with Russia, the United States and our Asian partners.

The European Council’s conclusions on energy and climate issues demonstrate that more consistent progress is now being made. The conclusions prepare the ground for the German Presidency and the spring summit at which these issues will be high on the agenda.

Honourable Members,

On Friday, I received some direct feedback from the press. They thought that the European Council was boring, the dullest of all time, that the decisions lacked drama and that there were no last-minute solutions hammered out in the early hours of the morning. If it is dull for decisions to be taken in an orderly fashion and on schedule, then yes, I have to say that I am dull and proud of it. Europe needs concrete results, not contrived political drama.

I am convinced that a Europe of results is the best way of moving the Union forwards. We need practical solutions that make a difference to our citizens. Those are the foundations we have to lay if we want to develop the Union’s legitimacy, if we want to build major structures like the Constitutional Treaty.

Mr President,

There are 13 days left until the end of the Finnish Presidency. Naturally, we will remain on duty until the last minute. During the Presidency, one of the main priorities has been to strengthen the unity of the EU. We will not make much of an impression in the world if we cannot present a more united front in our external relations.

The early part of Finland’s Presidency was marked by a serious crisis in the Middle East, culminating in a serious conflict in Lebanon. I am proud to say that the EU took a strong and united position on the Lebanese crisis. It acted decisively to implement the resolutions passed by the UN Security Council and, most crucially, it was able to mobilise troops, which made for a sufficiently strong UN operation in Lebanon. The summer was a testing time but the Union came through it with flying colours. And I would like to say thank you once again to all the Member States for the support the Presidency received in dealing with this matter.

It is essential for the EU to be united and resolute in its external relations and to use a wide range of instruments to work for a better world. Since enlargement the Union has moved into the leading position in the world on a number of counts. We must take full advantage of this. During our Presidency, we have also done a great deal to improve the coherence of development policy, for instance: an issue of primary importance to a significant global actor like the EU.

One of Finland’s priorities was to strengthen the EU's policy towards Russia. Here too, the practical importance of a united policy is very much in evidence. At the informal summit in Lahti, we had a good discussion with the Russian President, Mr Putin and the EU succeeded in speaking with one voice to Russia. Russia is clearly an important partner for the EU. That much can be seen from a quick look at any map. Russia is important for the EU, we are bound together by many ties but it is fair to say that certain trends in Russia give us cause for concern. I am not altogether sure that Russia is heading in the right direction. We need to see a firmer commitment to democracy, the rule of law and the market economy. We do not want Russia to go in an authoritarian direction. We are fully entitled to be concerned at the way things are going in Russia.

Russia is an acid test of the EU’s unity. Finland would like to have arrived at a consensus on starting negotiations with Russia on a comprehensive new agreement. For reasons you already know, that consensus was beyond reach. I think the new agreement provides an excellent illustration of the problem we face: we need a strong joint agreement as the main basis for cooperation between us, and to provide a lasting foundation for trade and energy cooperation. If no common agreement is possible, then I am afraid the short-termist fall-back option is a network of bilateral agreements that would enable Russia to treat different Member States in different ways. Some will get good agreements, some will get bad ones and some may get no agreement at all. And yet a united EU is self-evidently important enough to Russia as a partner for it to be able, as a single entity, to negotiate a decent agreement. Just how united is Europe if we are competing amongst ourselves to see who can get the best conditions? That is not what European solidarity is about.

Honourable Members,

Presidencies start with high ambitions but real life brings us all back down to earth. We have achieved a great deal but some crucial matters have been left unresolved. Finland worked hard for a decision on amending the Working Time Directive and I think we got pretty close to achieving it. But it wasn't enough. The problem has not gone away of course and I wish subsequent Presidencies success in finding a solution to this issue.

Mr President,

I am rather sad that this is the last time I will be representing the Finnish Presidency at a plenary session of Parliament. I have some splendid memories of good cooperation with Parliament and I would like to thank you all for the support you have given Finland in its endeavours.

I believe that Europe’s future lies in unity. A united Europe where border fences are an increasingly rare sight. I am particularly pleased that we achieved a result on Schengen enlargement. That is the kind of progress Europe’s citizens expect from us as decision-makers.

Once again, I offer my sincerest thanks to the European Parliament for its excellent cooperation.