Something wrong with the mirror, or the face?

COLUMN

print this

By Paavo Rautio
     
      According to an opinion poll published a week ago by the Finnish Business and Policy Forum (EVA), Finns are viewing the European Union more critically than at any time during their country's EU membership.
      People naturally have the right to hold all kinds of opinions, but is Finland really anti-EU, and are there grounds for such criticism?
     
It might be possible to pickout a few conclusions from the EVA survey as arguments for what views have the most support. If the group of those who are unsure are left out, the list of arguments look like this:
      Attitudes toward the European Union are either positive or neutral. Finns do not want to leave the European Union. Membership in the Union is seen in everyday life, and EU matters are followed with interest, even though they are not very well known. This in spite of the fact that reliable information is available.
      Membership fees are too high and Finland's voice is not sufficiently heard in EU decision-making. In addition, the EU has the problem that powers of the large member states are increasing, public opinion is not heard, and pointless directives come out of Brussels.
      Large countries dominate cooperation, and they promote their own self-interest. The Union is bureaucratic, it lacks both a common spirit, and leadership, and it fumbles around with trivial matters. In spite of this, the Union is the only power that can steer development in Europe.
      The fall of the EU constitution in the referendums in the Netherlands and France was a good thing. The enlargement which took place in the spring of 2004 was not a very successful move, and the present enlargement projects should be stopped. Turkey is not needed, because the Islamic culture is not appropriate to the Union.
      Exchanging the markka for the euro was the wrong solution, and member states should be able to influence the policies of the European Central Bank.
     
On the basis of such a list, Finns can be seen to be a nation that has a basically calm and realistic attitude of the EU. The view of the Union is by no means a full rejection, if summarised in the form of this kind of a history-free cross-section.
      The opinion poll gains depth if the direction of development - history - is added to the interpretation. Then it can be seen that by many different criteria, opinions on the blessings of the EU have grown darker.
      This development can be interpreted from two angles. The first interpretation is that Finland is finally getting used to membership in the EU. The first heady days are over, and life together has evened out. The partner shows some wrinkles, but divorce is nevertheless not looming on the horizon.
     
Another possible interpretation is that there are objective reasons for the growth of pessimism among Finns. The EU has become worse. Or to quote [populist Rural Party chairman] Veikko Vennamo, "the people know".
      Both interpretations can be backed up by persuasive arguments. The most active supporters of EU membership like to reject the latter. Nevertheless, even this view can be justified.
      One reason for this is that the EU has made its most visible mark recently in the realm of bickering. When negotiations were being held for the budget of 2007 - 2013, the member states disputed over how each of them might reduce their membership dues, and which country would be entitled to extract the most money out of EU coffers. At the same time, however, what happened to Finland was that the membership dues increased. There were very few leaders in Europe who were concerned about common interests.
     
The Finns' view of the growth of the power of the large member states can also be correct. The stability and growth pact, which keeps Economic and Monetary Union in check, was diluted under pressure of the large EU member states, because they were not able to stay within the boundaries of the pact.
      Finland wanted the EU budget to be bigger than the large member states wanted it to be, and for the EU to invest more money in research. The small country was bulldozed. The same thing happened when trade in services was to be liberalised. In budget talks, the whole Union was a prisoner of the parochialism of two giants: France held on to agricultural funding, and Britain insisted on its membership rebate.
      Now national passions are rising, as the decision-makers of the large member states try to prevent companies seen as strategic property from falling into foreign hands. Small member states would probably not be allowed to do this.
      It can justifiably be said that with respect to the enlargement of 2004, the new member states have not been absorbed into the goals of the Union as had been expected. For instance, Poland sees itself as being too great a country to follow the will of the EU without its own national exceptions.
      The progress of the new member states toward EMU is also difficult because of their high inflation rates, and shoring up the gap in standards of living of the old and new member states does not seem to be moving forward.
     
It is also not very strange that the views can be found among respondents to the EVA opinion poll, according to which too much haste is being made in the upcoming enlargement. Romania does not seem to be a country meeting EU standards for many reasons, but membership still approaches inevitably. Turkey is also joining in, although the citizens of the present member states are arguing against the idea, and although there is not full certainty in the EU if Turkey's increasingly European principles of law will ever reach the level of practical implementation.
      If referendums toppled the constitution, and left the European Union to act on the basis of the Nice Treaty, Finns might be right that there were some blessings in the event. Finally, the powerful men are compelled to listen to the people.
     
It may well be that the growth of critical attitudes, which shine in the EVA report, is simply reflection of reality - that the EU has changed in a negative direction, and that the view of the Finns reflects this development - and that the distortion is not in the mirror, but in the face.
      But with all respect, nevertheless! If EU membership has meant something undeniably good, it is the common currency, and the economic stability that it has brought. We seem to have quickly forgotten how the markka would be allowed to float, the impact of currency speculation, and the massive interest rates on home loans. In their place has been the erroneous view that the euro has raised price levels in general.
      And if the Finns hope for more political influence in the operations of the central bank, then it might be good to ask what the countries are, whose politicians would usurp this power. Certainly not those of the small country Finland.
      Therefore: respected citizens, your view of monetary union is a strange one.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 15.3.2006


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Support for EU at low ebb in Finland (8.3.2006)

PAAVO RAUTIO / Helsingin Sanomat
paavo.rautio@hs.fi