Prime Minister Vanhanen: Discussion on the Treaty of Lisbon at the Finnish Parliament

Mr Speaker,

The Treaty of Lisbon, signed in Lisbon on 13 December, is a result of a long process. The Treaty basis of the European Union has been intensely worked on during Finland’s membership in the EU. Our 13-year membership has, with the exception of some two years, been marked by preparations, negotiations or ratifications concerning the reform of the EU Treaties.

After the conclusion of the Convention on the Future of the European Union, in 2002 and 2003, and the Intergovernmental Conference, in 2003 and 2004, it was agreed that the EU Treaties should be abolished and replaced by a uniform text, the Constitutional Treaty. Eighteen Member States, that is more than two thirds of them, ratified the Constitutional Treaty but the results of referendums held in France and the Netherlands in 2005 prevented the entry into force of the Treaty. As a consequence, it was decided that there was a need for a period of reflection on the future of Europe.

During its Presidency in the autumn of 2006, Finland brought the passive reflection period to an end and held confidential bilateral consultations on the Treaty reform with all Member States and EU institutions. The discussions showed that the Member States were ready to accept the contents of the Constitutional Treaty for its main part but at the same time they were not satisfied with its form.

Germany continued discussions with the Member States and at the end of its Presidency, in June 2007, consensus was reached on a mandate for a new Intergovernmental Conference. The mandate was based on the contents of the Constitutional Treaty and the changes to be introduced to the text were carefully registered. The Intergovernmental Conference based its work on this mandate and the final agreement on the new Treaty was reached at an unofficial meeting of the EU Heads of State or Government in October 2007. The text which was initially referred to as the ‘Reform Treaty’ was finally named the 'Treaty of Lisbon’ in accordance with the place where it was signed.

Mr Speaker,

The Lisbon Treaty meets the same basic criterion as the Constitutional Treaty: It is a definite improvement to the current situation and the Government therefore proposes ratification of the Treaty. The Treaty of Lisbon will almost fully implement the reforms that Finland considers important. The aim was to change the form of the Treaty to one uniform text but this objective could not be reached. In connection with the Lisbon Treaty, changes were introduced in the traditional way, i.e. through amendments to previous Treaties. This means that the old Treaties will remain valid to the extent they still remain unamended.

The delimitation of competences between the Union and its Member States are clarified in the Lisbon Treaty but it introduces no major substantive changes to the current situation. The principle of conferred power will remain a key premise. Accordingly, the EU will act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States and competences not conferred upon the Union will remain with the Member States.

With the new Treaty, the Union will have single legal personality and the pillar structure will be dismantled. EU decision making procedures will be streamlined and simplified. The ordinary legislative procedure, which corresponds with the current co-decision procedure, will become the main rule. This means that decisions will be mainly adopted by qualified majority at the Council of the European Union. The European Parliament will share legislative power equally with the Council.

Increased use of the ordinary legislative procedure will be a significant change especially in justice and home affairs as the third pillar has until now been based on intergovernmental cooperation in which decisions have required unanimity. In comparison with the Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty contains provisions concerning the emergency break arrangement and closer cooperation in justice and home affairs but these specifications do not change the basic solutions made already in the Constitutional Treaty.

Provisions concerning the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy also remain in relevant parts the same as in the Constitutional Treaty. Details specified in the Lisbon Treaty do not change the main solutions of the previous text.

The conversion of the Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights from a political document into a legally binding document is the most important reform with regard to citizens’ legal protection. In contrast to the Constitutional Treaty, an opt-out arrangement was agreed for the United Kingdom and Poland. According to this opt-out, courts of law cannot assess compliance with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in these Member States. The Reform Treaty will also fulfil Finland’s long-term objective – the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Lisbon Treaty will not change the institutional package of the Constitutional Treaty: two new high level actors will be introduced. The European Council will be transformed into an official EU institution making legally binding decisions. The chairmanship of the European Council will be transferred from the head of the rotating Presidency country to a permanent President elected separately. The President will be elected for a term of two and a half years and may be re-elected once.

Another new actor will be the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who will chair the Council of Ministers in its Foreign Affairs configuration instead of the Foreign Minister of the rotating Presidency country. The High Representative's duties will be the same as outlined in the Constitutional Treaty. The title will only change from Union Minister for Foreign Affairs to High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The High Representative will wear two hats, being also Vice-President of the Commission appointed for a five-year term as other Commissioners.

The institutional package will also reduce the size of the European Commission. There will no longer be a Commissioner from every Member State but a national from each Member State in two Commissions out of three. The European Council may still unanimously decide to change the decision on the number of Commissioners. Regardless of their size, every Member State will take equal turns in the rotation of Commissioners. This reduction in the size of the Commission will only be introduced in 2014 and it will not affect the Commission to be elected in 2009.

Mr Speaker,

From Finland's point of view, the Treaty of Lisbon meets our key objectives set for the negotiations and is an acceptable package improving the current situation. The document takes the legal form of an international treaty – as did the Constitutional Treaty, despite its name. It suggests some attributes of a federation but also the opposite: intergovernmentalism. My overall assessment is that the Treaty will maintain the essence of the current Union, a system sui generis, which is not a federation but more than just an association of states.

The Treaty of Lisbon enables the Union to evolve, according to objectives set by Finland and other Member States, towards a union with better capabilities to act internationally and with more effective decision making procedures. It improves efficiency and consistency in Union-level action and the reforms presented in it help the Union to increase legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty is of common interest to the Union and of national interest to Finland. Therefore the Government proposes Parliament its ratification. The Treaty of Lisbon has already been ratified by France, Hungary, Slovenia, Malta, Romania and Bulgaria. Ireland will be the only country holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in June.

Mr Speaker,

The opportunities offered by the Lisbon Treaty do not, however, guarantee any greater effectiveness or coherence to the Union’s functioning nor to its legitimacy in the eyes of the EU citizens. To fully benefit from these opportunities, we need adequate political will. Finland will work towards the emergence of such a political will.

In the near future, this political will be needed for the implementation of the reforms concerning the Treaty’s institutional package and for efforts to ensure its best possible functioning both as regards the Union's effectiveness and its legitimacy. Finland will be active in issues concerning the proper implementation of the Treaty and related preparations are already underway in the Government. Although the ratification process is still not finished, it is wise to consider the steps ahead and prepare for the future.

Particular challenges for the implementation of the Treaty will be introduced by the new high level actors brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon: the permanent President of the European Council and the High Representative. Efficiency of these new actors calls for a clear description of their responsibilities and division of duties between the two. Provisions laid down in the Lisbon Treaty do not provide answers to all questions related to the division of duties that may arise in day-to-day practical work.

The roles of the new actors in relation to the President of the European Commission and the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the rotating Presidency country should also be specified. Personalities of the first persons elected to the new posts must not significantly affect the formulation of their duties.

To ensure effectiveness of the system, it is important to find the right balance, determine the fair division of duties and establish good cooperation. That is necessary also to prevent the new and old Brussels-based institutions from diverging from the Member States – and to avoid the Member States’ alienation from the Union. This growing apart would weaken the Member States’ and citizens’ sense of ownership in relation to the EU and would diminish the Union’s legitimacy in the eyes of EU citizens. Direction and coordination of the Council’s work gives enough reason for a careful implementation.

The division of duties between the permanent President of the European Council and the High Representative is connected with the issue of representing the Union in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. According to the Lisbon Treaty, the President of the European Council is, in this capacity, responsible at his or her level for ensuring the external representation of the Union on issues concerning the Common Foreign and Security Policy. This duty of the permanent President does, however, not limit the competences of the High Representative, those including the direction of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the main representation of the Union in that area. The Commission has the overall responsibility for representing the Union in other external relations issues.

I believe that a fair division of duties between these two actors can be found. The actual leading role and active representation of the Union in Common Foreign and Security Policy in issues on the international community’s agenda at each time is a responsibility of the High Representative. Finland considers it important that the High Representative be given a strong role which would also strengthen the Union's role as a community. Close cooperation between the Commission President and the High Representative is essential, too.

The permanent President of the European Council would have a natural role in the external representation of the Union at the highest level, to the direction of the leaders of third countries both in bilateral connections as well as the third-country summits. He or she could promote the discussion of major political issues as formulated by the European Council, such as climate change and energy security. The duties to be determined and the work to be carried out by the President of the European Council could highlight the EU’s political priorities.

The determination of the division of duties between the new actors and their relations to the rotating Presidency is especially significant to the direction and coordination of the Council’s work. Coordination of the Council's work and transfer of issues from the Council to the European Council has been problematic also in the current system in which all Council formations and their preparatory bodies, as also the European Council, are chaired by the rotating Presidency. This will face more challenges when the chairmanship of the European Council and the Council of Ministers in its Foreign Affairs configuration will be transferred away from the rotating Presidency but the rest of the formations will still be chaired by it. The role of the General Affairs and External Relations Council will be emphasized but close cooperation between the new actors and the rotating Presidency will be necessary also in other ways. The rotating Presidency will have a central role in EU functions also after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, both in relation to issues as well as the general direction and coordination of work.

Mr Speaker,

Many key issues and changes relate to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. Even if the ratification process is still underway, it is necessary to some extent look further to the implementation as well. It took almost eight months to unite two ministries in Finland. One cannot assume that the foreign affairs administration of the EU would be transformed in a couple of months either. The new Treaty, its implementation and the enlarged Union with 27 Member States – all these create new challenges for Finland’s ability to influence in the EU. The need for anticipation at all levels of exercising influence is underlined. Because of the extent and significance of the issue, the Government will prepare, at the end of autumn, a report on the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy and the new state of the Union, if the Treaty is ratified by all EU countries. To my mind, recognising the role of the European Parliament and its influence in EU decision making will be a particular challenge for Finland and will unavoidably introduce further demands for the system of a country of our size.