The EU is facing a complex mess of problems: the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic shock it has caused and the chronic global challenges of climate change and vanishing biodiversity. Hard times have provoked a historical response and now the plan is to boost economic recovery and sustainable transition with a 750 billion stimulus package. The package was agreed on by the EU leaders together with the EU budget for the 2021-2027 period in July. This fall these agreements are processed in national parliaments and the European parliament, so the time is ripe for some serious debate about the policies and the direction of the union.

 This far in Finland the debate has followed familiar lines. Many are counting how much we pay to the EU and how much we receive in return. As the recovery is funded with capital raised together from the financial markets accusations of looming federalism are thrown around. Some are outright declaring that this is no longer the union the Finns voted to join!

 I’m in no position to dictate the debate. Anyone is free to bring in the points of view, perspectives and remarks they see relevant. Still, I feel that the EU discussion here often misses the point of the Union altogether and has quite a narrow perspective and somewhat nationalistic tone.

 Assessing the net benefit of EU membership is understandable but assessing the union mainly as a box where you put money and get some of it back makes little sense. The EU is a tightly integrated political and economic union. Analyzing it and its impacts by the national bookkeeping only doesn’t really give a complete picture. It’s difficult to count the exact economic value of shared standards for example, not to mention the lasting peace and security. 

 As for federalism, just tossing the word around is not exactly fruitful. Depending on how you define the term, the EU has been a federation for a long time, is on the way of becoming one or under current treaties can never be one. The label is not as important as the mandate of the union in relation to its member states. We could use more clearly stated visions as to what kind of EU are different political parties and politicians striving to build. The opponents of the EU should articulate their alternative path too. Getting out of the union is by no means a simple solution (just ask the Brits!).

 Now is the EU of today the one the Finns originally voted for? Of course not. Nor is Finland or the surrounding world the same as it was. We didn’t join into a changeless structure, but into a developing union in which we also have a say. Over a quarter of Finns living today weren’t even born at the time of the referendum and around half weren’t old enough to vote. For people grown up in a European Finland this part of the debate is quite distant.

 The European Union or its current policies are by no means perfect. The union seems dangerously weak in protecting its core values and democracy both within and outside its borders. The climate and energy policies of the EU are weighed down by the focus on means instead of ends. The success of the recovery package is not certain at all and depends on its ambitious execution. The challenges in negotiating new treaties lead to complicated readings of current treaties. In general, the governance structure and decision-making processes are far from transparent and are not helped by the clumsy communication. Still, the EU is an invaluable community that can be thanked for much of the European freedom, prosperity and peace we are enjoying today. The union is also critically needed as a global leader in tackling the ecological crises we are facing. 

The time calls for analytical, comprehensive, constructive and open EU debate with a European view. Radical ideas are welcome too, but it’s important that the forward-looking debate doesn’t get buried under populistic rhetoric and isolationism.

Atte Harjanne – MP

Photographer: Marko Seuranen 

This article was written for MP Talk, a regular column from the Helsinki Times in which Members of The Finnish Parliament contribute their thoughts and opinions. All opinions voiced are entirely those of the contributor and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of the Helsinki Times. 

All MPs of any party or political opinion are welcome to contribute by sending their columns to the editor: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The articles will be published in order of arrival.

French president Emmanuel Macron has called for an overhaul of the European Union’s internal border agreement after noting that terrorists have used migration flows.

The French leader said he would be proposing to the European Council next month an overhaul to the EU’s Schengen agreement, including “greater control” within the political bloc.

The European Union is likely to impose tariffs on $4 billion worth of imports from the US next week, anonymous EU diplomats said on 6 November. According to the officials, a majority of the bloc’s governments have given the green light to introduce the punitive measures against the United States, which will hit a range of goods, from potatoes, fruits, nuts, and other agricultural produce, to parts of planes, alcoholic beverages, and equipment used in casinos.

The tariffs are expected to be put in place during a meeting of EU trade ministers, which is scheduled for 9 November.

“I would expect the tariffs to be imposed next Tuesday or Wednesday”, an EU diplomat said.

The punitive measure was previously approved by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and will mirror US tariffs on $7.5 billion worth of EU goods and services that Washington imposed in October 2019. The two cases represent the world’s largest corporate trade dispute.

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has not commented on the issue. However, last month he emphasised that any restrictive measures from the European Union would “force a US response”. US President Donald Trump previously threatened to “strike back harder” if the bloc introduces tariffs. Although the results of the 2020 presidential election in the United are still unclear, even if Trump loses, his administration would have plenty of time to impose tariffs, as he will remain president until 20 January 2021.

The dispute between the United States and the European Union started in 2004, with both sides accusing each other of illegal financial assistance to aircraft manufacturers. Washington said Brussels was providing subsidies to Airbus through low interest rates, while the EU, in turn, accused the United States of offering financial support via tax breaks. Both sides filed complaints with the WTO.

The EU is closely following the Presidential and Congressional elections in the United States.

We take note of the latest development in the electoral process. On this basis the EU congratulates President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on reaching enough Electoral Votes.

We welcome the record voter turnout.

We follow the process of certification of results and are confident that the US electoral system will soon announce the final outcome.

The EU underlines, once again, its commitment to a strong transatlantic partnership and stands ready to engage with the elected President, new Congress and Administration.