Prime Minister Vanhanen at the seminar on the Vision for Finland

(subject to changes)

Ladies and gentlemen, seminar participants,

It gives me great pleasure to welcome you to this seminar on a vision for Finland’s EU policy in the 2010s. Thank you for coming. It is encouraging to see so many of you here today. I would also like to thank our distinguished speakers for joining us in considering the challenges of our EU policy.

This seminar is jointly arranged by the Prime Minister’s Office and the European Commission Representation in Helsinki. Another instance of our smooth cooperation with the Commission.

Ladies and gentlemen,

There are two major reasons why this seminar is needed: the EU now is very different from the EU that we joined 15 years ago, and its challenges are getting tougher.

The year 2009 is also significant in many ways for the development of the EU. Firstly, the June European Parliament elections will point the way in the political development of the EU.

Secondly, a new European Commission will be appointed after the election. The Commissioner appointments will determine the direction of the policies of the EU. It is because of these choices that it is important for us here in Finland to stop and think about what exactly we wish to achieve in the coming period and what the new Commission should take into account. Following our contemplation, we must efficiently communicate our vision to make it a part of European policy-making.

Thirdly, the EU is now seeking a solution to the enforcement of the Treaty of Lisbon. This Treaty will bring considerable reforms. It is vital, therefore, that we achieve a solution in the way outlined by the December European Council, meaning that the new Commission will begin its work on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon. It is important for the Treaty to enter into force so that the EU can better focus on the content of what it does. Laying down efficient practices for the new leadership of the EU from the outset is also a key priority. I am hardly the only one who thinks that after the Treaty of Lisbon, it would be a good idea to take an institutional time-out in order to focus on the implementation and promotion of policy.

While the EU is making these choices during the course of this year, there are also major external challenges. The EU, like the rest of the world, is buffeted by a financial crisis of unprecedented magnitude that is forcing us to take a good hard look at the very structures of our economies and our societies. I believe that the EU is Finland’s best bet for weathering this crisis.

This year, we will be making far-reaching decisions. We must, therefore, engage in a broad discussion of what issues Finland wishes to pursue at the EU level. This seminar grew out of my discussions with Commissioner Olli Rehn last summer after we arrived at the conclusion that we need to establish a new consensus regarding Finland’s EU policy. This is not unlike the meetings at Korpilampi in the 1970s where the achievement of a consensus on a vision for Finland’s economy and society was explored.

I would like to see this seminar progress in a similar vein, aiming to reach a consensus while keeping an open mind to any and all ideas. Whether we are in the government or in the opposition, in business or in paid employment, in third-sector organisations or in the public sectors, we all seek a shared vision and approach. I have high hopes for this discussion.

As part of an extensive consideration of EU matters, the Government intends to issue a report on Finland’s EU policy later this spring. This report must define the basic outline, operating procedures, focus areas in terms of content, and lobbying strategies in support of Finland’s EU policy. We are now into our 15th year of membership in the EU, and this is a good time for updating our overall policy in a Government report. No such comprehensive report on EU policy has been issued since we joined. Earlier EU policy reports have naturally focused on treaty reforms. It is high time that we drew up a new, comprehensive EU policy report. This seminar will feed directly into the drafting of that report, and thus your views will be of great importance to us.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The EU is ultimately a political process. Integration cannot be effected with slogans, and flags and odes are just icing on the cake. We have to have a clear conception of what exactly we wish to put forward in the EU. Our EU policy must be anchored in everyday reality, and its implementation must form part of our day-to-day politics.

Within the Government alone, there is a gratifying plurality of opinions on EU matters. I myself consider that I am taking the middle ground. I would like to see the EU be as practically oriented as possible, with a strong vision of the future it wishes to accomplish and the will to address concrete problems. This may sound very pragmatic of me, but we really need such a concrete approach. I believe that Finns have confidence in the EU when it achieves good results. Flag-waving will not turn our heads, but neither will blanket criticism move things forward.

Opinion polls show that Finns are far from fanatical EU supporters. I regard EU membership as a great opportunity for us. Nevertheless, the EU has to maintain credibility in the eyes of its citizens. The best way to promote this credibility is to demonstrate that the EU has the capacity to solve problems that directly affect its citizens. To quote a response from the audience: the everyday lives of European citizens and the agenda of the EU must intersect. In a clash between a lofty vision and a porpoise inspector on board a fishing boat, the lofty vision is easily discarded.

My view is that the Convention on the Future of Europe left behind an air of of understandable boredom. The Convention meant well and was an important process, but it became too detached from what ordinary citizens are feeling. In fact, it got too clever for its own good. It proved impossible to sell its end product to the citizens. We are still suffering from the after-effects of this, and so we need concrete measures to restore the confidence of citizens in the EU. Idealism is all very well, but realism must be in the driver’s seat. We may still have the same goals, but these goals can only be attained through realistic policies.

If the EU has suffered from a mismatch between rhetoric and reality, so has Finland’s EU policy debate. Public debate on the EU is trivialized by disingenuous criticism. This amounts to contempt for Finnish citizens. We should discuss facts, not tell scary stories. We should talk about real life, not conspiracy theories. It is high time that we put the trauma of accession behind us and stop arguing about whether it was a good idea to join in the first place. I feel that the clear answer is that EU membership is not only a permanent state of affairs, it is something that provides us with clear benefits while requiring that we accept that not everything can go exactly as we would like it.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The EU is not an island - our EU policy must involve considering the world at large too. I feel that future developments are aligned along a clear central theme: while the immediate challenge in world policy is to manage the current financial crisis, a more permanent challenge is apparent in the significant reorganisation of the global relationships of power. There is talk of the return of geopolitics. This is something that we should look at.

The world’s population continues to grow, and emerging economies are undergoing a period of rapid industrialisation. In recent decades, Asia - particularly China - has risen to be an important global player in the economy, and hence also in politics. It is true that the financial crisis blurs the picture and causes massive uncertainty, but I believe that new power centres will eventually emerge alongside Europe, the USA and Japan, starting with China, India and Brazil. Combined with a robust population growth, this will inevitably translate into a competition for natural resources and an increasing burden on the environment. Once the financial crisis has passed, we will face a competitive challenge even in the traditionally strong European export sectors.

Europe threatens to fall behind in this trend, if only for the reason that the population of the industrialised countries is ageing rapidly. To summarise Europe’s challenges in this redistribution of global politics, I would name four key issues. Firstly, we must engage in closer cooperation with the USA. With the new administration, there is good potential for this. Secondly, the relationship between the EU and Russia must be developed into a genuine partnership. I believe that the global financial crisis is also bringing home to Russia just how much Russia needs Europe. Thirdly, the Middle East should be regarded as a neighbouring area for Europe. Hence, Europe must adopt a more active role in the resolution of the conflict in the Middle East. This is something that today once more seems to have receded into the distant future. And fourthly, Europe bears a special responsibility towards Africa. Unfortunately, Africa has not been able to achieve the same rate of development as other emerging regions. Europe must have an Africa policy of its own. A geopolitical race is in progress in Africa.

This, in my view, is the world policy agenda of the EU in a nutshell. Its content must be guided by our values and our ideals. We must address climate change. We must promote democracy. We must eliminate poverty. We must prevent conflicts, and so on. And we must also consider the EU’s approach to resource policy and to ensuring the availability of raw materials and energy. Geopolitics has always involved looking after one’s own interests.

Ladies and gentlemen,

For the purposes of discussions later today, I would like to spell out the things that I feel are important for Finland’s EU policy.

Finland has benefited substantially from EU membership. This membership has brought us greater economic growth, monetary stability, a significant lobbying channel and increased security. Finland would do considerably worse outside the EU than it is doing as a Member State. This is not an opinion but a fact. EU membership provides us with an important channel for shaping common policy to address key challenges such as climate policy. As an EU Member State, Finland has more influence in international affairs than it has had in its entire history.

Finland has been in the mainstream of the EU ever since we joined, and it is exactly the right place for us. We are an active Member State and do not shy away from the development of a common policy or deeper integration. We rarely have a problem with matters to be agreed on in the EU. This is not to say that Finland is a ‘yes man’ content with approving just anything; it would be more accurate to say that as an efficient and competitive Member State, we may be benefiting more than others from common rules and the opportunities which these rules afford. This is a paradigm that I have often spoken about and which I continue to profess.

Just last week, I visited the European Commission and talked to the entire collegium. We discussed the economy, Finland’s experiences and what the EU should do. The reception and the speeches made were very flattering for Finland.

We have managed well in promoting our essential interests. A good example of this is the climate and energy package agreed on in December; our lobbying strategy could not have had a better effect. We began lobbying immediately after the common goals were agreed in spring 2007. This happened at all levels, mainly behind the scenes. By the time decisions came to be made, the key points important for Finland had already been included in the outline proposed by the President. Our lobbying is subtle but efficient. Our recent successes also include health inspections in agriculture and, most recently, the Commission’s economic booster package. The respect commanded by Finland and the correct approach in lobbying form a solid foundation for the results we have achieved.

Naturally, like all other countries Finland has its special interests. We are, in many ways, an exceptional Member State with our northern climate, long distances, sparse population and our long land border with Russia. By staying in the EU mainstream and making a constructive contribution to the development of the EU, we can secure the best possible potential for promoting our own interests to have our special circumstances taken into account. A constructive Member State carries the most influence.

Developing the institutions of the EU is an essential issue for Finland. Being a small Member State, we obviously benefit from matters being processed in EU institutions instead of somewhere else, for instance by the large Member States between themselves. Finland has an obvious interest in the smooth running of EU institutions, which is why we have made an active and constructive contribution to the improvement of the EU Treaties. The voice of a small country can only be heard when everyone is sitting at the same table. This simple insight governs our approach to the development of the rules and institutions of the EU. It guides our opinions in the debate on institutions. To change those opinions would require very compelling reasons.

We support a strong and independent Commission. It is the best guarantee of communal EU policy, a promoter of the interests of the EU as a whole and, if necessary, an opposing force to the influence of the large Member States. The strong status of the Commission stems from its independence relative to other institutions. Therefore, a strong Commission remains a key concept in Finland’s EU policy. In light of this, it is easy to understand why I proposed last year that the re-appointment of the current President of the European Commission should be ensured in good time. A smoothly functioning Council is also part of the system. The Commission and the Council are not rivals - they are partners. We are averse to intergovernmental scheming, but by this we do not mean the Council, which after all is a legitimate EU body – what we do mean is fixing things on the quiet behind closed doors, usually between the large Member States. We have seen far too many such backroom meetings recently.

At the same time, we must be realistic and recognize the challenges and characteristics of EU development. The considerable growth in the importance of the European Parliament is a decisive change. This is a fact that has led to the EU becoming an increasingly political environment. European political groups and the work of the Parliament have acquired more importance in the shaping of European legislation. Finland faces the challenge of wielding influence in the European Parliament and needs to do so. We need to invest more in these efforts. There are many positive points in this trend. The Parliament is able to make political decisions that can resolve an impasse even between Member States. Finland should not fear this.

It is important that as the influence of the European Parliament grows and the relative status of Finland diminishes, the Finnish Members elected to the European Parliament be skilled in the art of promoting Finland’s interests in particular and Europe’s interests in general. The European Parliament should be a political forum equal in importance to domestic politics.

Finland has had a disgracefully low voter turnout in European Parliament elections. I believe that this would not be the case if people really knew what the status of the European Parliament in shaping legislation is. The European Parliament is a forum where the interests of both Finland and Europe can be effectively promoted. We may be pleased that there are no fewer than four former Members of the European Parliament in our current Government. It shows that the European Parliament is no place for tourists.

We should also discuss the role of our Members of the European Parliament. Do they represent Finland or the European political groupings to which they belong? To take a tangible example: a short while ago the Parliament voted on the Working Time Directive. This will have a substantial impact, for instance, on the Finnish health care system. If the Working Hours Directive ends up being unfavourable to us concerning the hours that doctors can be on call, for example, our health care costs will increase substantially. There is a broad political consensus across party lines concerning Finland’s interests in this matter. The position of the Council agrees with Finland’s interests. Yet only two Finnish MEPs voted for the solution favourable to Finland. So whose side are they on, anyway? I spent a lot of time talking about this during Finland’s Presidency, and I would be very surprised if our MEPs had not been aware of what Finland’s aims are in this matter. I also regret that we have not yet established a working system of regular meetings between the Government and Finnish MEPs. All my past attempts have resulted in only a few MEPs being able to attend. If we need more communication, we have to make it happen.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Another key challenge is the possibility for divergent integration. So far, integration has only progressed in a single direction. Some may have progressed more rapidly than others, but the goals have been the same. For the time being, Finland is involved in all cooperation. This is what being in the mainstream is all about: we want to make a difference. The reason I said ‘for the time being’ is that disputes involving family law have shown that there are aims at divergence involving points that we do not want to see ending up as EU policy.

Finland has also been a pioneer in the development of military crisis management. The Government just outlined in the Security and Defence Policy Report that it is our aim to participate in structural cooperation involving military capabilities, another spearhead initiative that I believe all Member States will participate in to the best of their ability.

Finland has an obvious interest in staying in the EU mainstream, but the possibility of divergent integration poses a new challenge for us. What should we do if, in the future, the EU begins to develop divergently, with closer cooperation being pursued in different ways in different directions? One of you asked in your priority responses, well to the point, what will happen if the EU is divided into factions of the able and the willing. We need to discuss this.

What is essential in my mind is that even with divergent integration we should not allow any form of cooperation to split apart the EU; such trends cannot be pursued in sectors that form the shared foundation of the EU such as the internal market. A possible divergence in the area of family law is a case in point.

It is a fact that the enlarged, 27-member EU is a very different animal in its internal dynamics than the 15-member EU that we joined. I have observed both of these from the inside. Whoever claims that all the principles and practices of the 15-member EU are still valid has not seen the inside of a meeting room for many years. In an enlarged EU, coalitions shift on a case-by-case basis, and successful action requires great agility in staying on top of things and in seeking allies. There is no leadership group in the Council that Finland could attach itself to, as was the case before. We need to face the facts.

After enlargement, we outlined our lobbying strategy as is well known. It focuses on our ability to enter coalitions flexibly on a case-by-case basis, to engage in close cooperation with the Commission, to increase our influence on the European Parliament, to anticipate matters sufficiently, to set priorities unambiguously, and to cooperate smoothly with other Member States.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The new Commission will draw up a programme much like Governments in Finland draw up a Government Programme for the new electoral period. We need to influence the programme of the new Commission, and the key question – on which I request your input – is what this programme should contain. Are there matters that the EU is not now managing but should? The scope of operations of the EU has widened, and this is a good thing.

I will give you a concrete example. When the present Commission, soon to step down, was appointed, energy was not much of a European issue. The deregulation of the energy market had progressed, but energy security and the relationship of the EU with energy-producing countries were beneath the radar. However, at the beginning of 2006, energy suddenly soared to the top of the EU agenda as the gas pipelines through Ukraine were shut down. The EU’s climate goals also underline the importance of energy policy. This is a good example of a sector that has gone from obscurity to being a key EU policy issue in the space of only a few years. Today, it is difficult to imagine energy not being an important sector in EU policy. But what, apart from energy, are the new focus areas in which the EU should take action?

Climate policy will remain an EU priority. We may be proud that the EU has been able to take concrete action to curb climate change. At the same time, we must ensure that this climate policy advantage is used to our industrial advantage. As pioneers, we are well placed to benefit economically if we can only manage to develop the innovations and technological expertise required by our climate policy. Denmark has achieved this in the area of wind power. Perhaps Finland could become a centre of expertise for energy efficiency and bioenergy.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The financial crisis is a serious business. We are navigating treacherous waters where old charts no longer hold true. The EU has been able to take the initiative in handling the crisis. I consider the measures taken last autumn to have been successful. Close coordination proved to be essential. The scramble to raise deposit guarantee limits is a good example of the difficulties we can end up in when policy is not coordinated. This is not a question of competence or jurisdiction; coordination is simply a question of political will. Indeed, it was the shared political will of the Member States that governed EU action last autumn.

I am convinced that the present crisis is showing the need for closer coordination in economic policy between EU Member States and a strong common financial supervision. Economic policy coordination does not have to be a clumsy straitjacket or involve a supranational financial board. It is quite simply a necessity for the EU Member States to find the capacity for deeper cooperation in the harmonization of their economic policies. It does not make sense for some countries to create booster packages and for others to tighten the purse strings. Uncoordinated policies can only lead to chaos.

Joint agreement is crucial to preserve confidence between Member States even in times of crisis. Our joint decisions have considerable value in demonstrating our decisiveness in acting together to combat the recession and the financial crisis. Our common reaction last autumn and the close coordination that was achieved after an initial period of fumbling were also a prerequisite for securing the foundation of the Stability and Growth Pact and the competition rules. The chaos of uncoordinated policies would inevitably have crumbled that foundation.

In my view, our common financial supervision system should be built around the European Central Bank. To be sure, the current national supervision system can be developed through joint actions, since financial institutions operate in more than one country, but I see no reason why the system should not be a comprehensive one, at least in part. Being a eurozone country, Finland can scarcely afford to claim that the ECB is incapable or incompetent. European financial supervision could work with a similar structure, where national supervision authorities would serve as the local offices of a single European system. Money can cross borders in a flash, and so supervision facilities must be up to date.

I feel that European financial supervision is unnecessarily shunned. The feeling is that national authorities are always better than someone at the European level. A similar attitude can be seen in many sectors. It is touching to see how confident people are in the fact that Finland always has the better system, whether it involves patents, consumer protection or the justice system. National is not always best. Common systems at the EU level yield huge benefits. Experience has shown that the customs union, the common trade policy, the euro and the internal market have been enormously beneficial to the Member States. These projects would never have seen the light of day had everyone been of the opinion that there is no point in seeking European-level solutions and entrenched themselves in their national systems instead. On the other hand, it is precisely because financial supervision works in Finland that we need to be active in the debate on European financial supervision.

For the past few decades, the markets have outrun policies in the progress of globalization. We are now paying a steep price for the lack of policy - from Scandinavia to the developing countries. A change of concept is needed.

This would not be the first time that integration has progressed through crisis. The oil crisis and recession of the 1970s led to the conceiving of the internal market programme. Perhaps the current financial crisis will spur deeper integration.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel. And it is essential to remember this particularly in developing the internal market. The internal market is the cornerstone of the EU. It is the base and source of the ultimate strength and economic success of the EU. Nevertheless, further efforts are needed to deepen and improve the internal market. On the one hand, this involves developing new rules. In the area of services in particular, the internal market still needs work. On the other hand, this is a question of implementation. Close attention must be paid to the implementation of the internal market in all Member States. My message for the programme of the new Commission is thus short and simple: develop the internal market.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Finland will inevitably become a significant net contributor to the EU budget. This in itself is proof of how well we are doing: Finland has consistently demonstrated a higher rate of growth than the EU on average. The increase in our net contribution shows that we are doing better than others. If Finland became poorer and things went really badly, we could become a net recipient, but this would be a hollow triumph since our welfare and our income would be substantially lower than they are now.

In 2007, Finland’s net contribution to the EU was EUR 172 million. Euro-sceptics always like to bring up how well Norway is doing outside the EU, but in this context I must note that in 2007, Norway paid a net contribution of EUR 300 million to the EU for access to the internal market. No country outside the EU can gain the benefits of entering a market with 500 million people for nothing. Finland has never had to pay as high a contribution to the EU as Norway did in 2007.

We have gradually grown wealthy at a higher rate than other Member States, and therefore our status as a net contributor will strengthen.

It is important to consider how Finland’s net contributor status will affect our policies. To me, one thing at least is clear: we must not fall into the trap of obstructionist policy – by opposing EU measures for the simple reason that we are paying more into the EU budget than we are receiving from it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I believe that we must take an unprejudiced look at the EU’s major expenditure items, such as agricultural policy, structural policy and regional policy. For example, regional and structural policy is fragmented into too many programmes and projects. There must be ways of simplifying it. Instead of small projects, we need comprehensive programmes directly involved in the improvement of expertise and infrastructure.

In agricultural policy, we should aim to have the whole of Finland covered by a single subsidy system, the one now in use in the northern part of the country. It is essential to have a clear, uniform and effective system to avoid the situation mentioned by one of today’s participants in their response: the incompetent supervising the unwilling. Our policy must support the vitality of the countryside and the diversity and quality of agricultural production. Unnecessary bureaucracy must be eliminated. When we joined the EU, its view at the time was that it is essential to even out regional differences even within Member States. This is outdated policy.

The EU involves a strong solidarity component. Members must be prepared to help other members. The EU is not just about moving money around and calculating how much we get out of the budget. The solidarity principle has been brought up in the area of energy security as some Member States have been suffering from a shortage of supply. It is important that we are prepared to support other Member States, as this is the only way in which we can expect other Member States to help us in turn and to understand our problems, whether they relate to our northern conditions or the challenges of our business and industry. The Finnish Government just adopted a new Security and Defence Policy Report, which underlines the importance of this solidarity also in security policy.

Finland must have a distinct security policy. We are in favour of strengthening the EU in the area of security policy. There must be no restraints here. A functional EU is in our interests now and in the future. NATO is much discussed in Finland. However, as we are an EU Member State, it is logical for us to focus on developing the EU. This is the European path I wish to take.

Energy security is a good example of what an active Commission can do. In October, only three months ago, the EU Prime Ministers of the Baltic Sea region met with the President of the Commission to discuss energy security in the region. A high-level working group was set up, and the Council is already discussing an investment subsidy list submitted by the Commission, specifying nearly half a billion euros in EU money to be invested in improving key energy networks in the region. This is an example of political will translated into funding and projects. Such examples are needed.

Ladies and gentlemen,

As I said at the beginning, 2009 will be a year of great change and great challenges for the European Union. This is why it is important to re-appoint the present President of the Commission, Mr Barroso. Not only because of continuity but also because changes will happen in the institutions of the EU with the advent of the Treaty of Lisbon. The major change is that the European Council will appoint a permanent President. Because it is important for Finland that an institutional balance is maintained, we want to see a strong and independent Commission. This is why it would be important for Mr Barroso to continue as President of the Commission as the new institutional arrangements are being implemented.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Finland has done well in EU policy. We get results, and we make a constructive contribution to the development of the EU. We should consider ourselves part of the solution, not part of the problem. To conclude, I would like to reiterate the basic themes on which I consider Finland’s EU policy should be based. I would be happy to hear your responses to them.

Firstly, the EU is an essential channel of influence for Finland. Finland must remain in the mainstream of the EU. One cannot exert influence from the periphery. Remaining in the mainstream requires us to show a constructive attitude to developing the EU. We must be involved in seeking common solutions, not obstructing them.

Secondly, we have no reservations about the development of the EU. I feel that the role of the EU should be increased in sectors where it is of clear benefit to us. We need a stronger EU in external relations, security, energy, finances, and justice and internal affairs.

Thirdly, the economy is the foundation of the EU. The internal market must be improved and competitiveness boosted. At the same time, a better balance must be sought between economy and politics; the EU has from the first been an instance of the ‘third way’ where transnational supervision is sought for a transnational economy. The EU has the right idea: an open market with strong, shared rules.

Fourthly, the EU must remain an open community. Open to new members, trade and people. The EU must dare to say ‘no’ to protectionism and promote free trade. Enlargement must be continued. Finland came to the conclusion some time ago that Turkey’s EU membership would benefit the EU in general and Finland in particular once Turkey fulfils the membership criteria. I do not believe that it would be in the interests of our continent for Turkey to leave the negotiating table and shut the door. Also, enlargement should not be tightly linked to the Treaty of Lisbon coming into force. I also look forward to a future where all the Nordic countries are EU Member States. This would strengthen the EU and would benefit all of northern Europe.

Fifthly, the EU must take a more unified approach in external relations. The EU must speak with a single voice at the UN and in international financial institutions. The EU must bear its share of responsibility for Africa and the Middle East. Our trans-Atlantic relations must be developed into a closer partnership based on our shared liberal values. EU-Russian relations must be brought onto firmer ground in a way that will help to open up and modernize Russia.

And finally, for the sake of its citizens, the EU must become a people's Europe where national boundaries are irrelevant for the purposes of their everyday lives. At the same time, the social dimension of integration must be strengthened by ensuring the adoption of the basic principles of European welfare society in the activities of the Union and its future development.

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is high time that I took a seat to listen to what you have to say. I will be presenting my summary of the seminar’s discussions at the end of the day. I look forward to the keynote speeches and the following discussions with keen interest. When you signed up for this seminar, you were invited to submit your views on what the priorities of Finland’s EU policy should be. Your responses were carefully considered and reinforced my conception of a national vision. It would seem that there is already a fairly clear consensus as to the key focus areas.

I would like to remind you that this is an excellent opportunity for influencing how we will be developing our EU policy in the future. This is why you are here today.