There's a French farmer eating at my table

COLUMN

print this

By Paavo Rautio
     
     What is my position as a net contributor in Finland this year? I am probably one of the big net contributors, because I do not receive any income transfers, and I use very few services provided by society. The few services that I use are the right to use the transport infrastructure provided by society, and education for my child.
     The balance is heavily on the negative: I pay, and others use my money. Net recipients include pensioners, whose pension income I help finance to the tune of more than three quarters.
     The Ministry of Finance said last week that Finland contributed much more to the coffers of the European Union than it got.
     The subject of EU payments is a sensitive issue in Finland. Moves were immediately made to rectify the information given out by the ministry. Included in the figures were technical aspects, and these included customs duty revenues that go automatically to the EU. Eurosceptics in Internet chat rooms got new inspiration. In their view, EU membership only costs Finland money, and we get nothing in return for what we have spent.
     
The wisdom of joining the EU has been measured in Finland in monetary terms from the very beginning. There was tough debate over EU payments already before the EU referendum. Calculations by opponents of the EU came to completely different conclusions than the sums put forward by supporters of membership. Opponents found a deliberate attempt by the state to exaggerate the revenue coming from the EU, and to underestimate the expenses. They linked up the cost-cutting of the early 90s, and the EU payments in a manner that suggested that benefits were being slashed in order to have enough money to send to Brussels.
     Supporters of EU membership also had their difficulties. In 1994 the Ministry for Foreign Affairs calculated the costs of membership twice, and got two different results: according to the first estimate, Finland would be a net recipient, and according to a later calculation, it would be a net contributor.
     Calculations by a key Centre Party figure, former Foreign Minister and current MEP Paavo Väyrynen, lived according to the mission: As Minister for Foreign Affairs, he assumed that Finland would be a net recipient. As Member of Parliament and EU opponent, he concluded that Finland would be a net contributor.
     Since then, the costs of EU membership have been added up and criticised on many occasions. As calculated by the Commission, Finland is currently a very small net contributor in proportion to its GDP. The total balance of Finland's years as an EU member is probably still on the plus side. In the new financial period 2007 - 2013 Finland's status as a net contributor will be reinforced.
     
A comparison of costs and earnings from membership is impossible in practice, because the cost side involved concrete flows of money, and the earnings involve money only partly. How is one to measure the economic stability offered by Economic and Monetary Union? And what about the better visibility of Finland and Finnish companies?
     More confusion stems from the fact that spending that is not sent to Brussels is counted as expenditure resulting from EU membership. It is Finland's own fault if Finnish lorries have to be made more narrow according to EU standards: the transport sector here bought wide vehicles without regard for EU directives, and Finnish officials gave them permission to do it.
     Possibly the greatest problem in weighing the costs of membership could be that the income transfers in the EU system are not accepted. I can accept Finland's being a net contributor, because I approve of circulating my money to the pensioners who built this society, and to the children who will continue to build this society years from now. But I cannot accept that the structure of the EU budget channels my money to French millionaire farmers, or the builders of a theme park on the Costa del Sol.
     Nevertheless, an enlightened guess after all of these reservations would be that no matter how the costs and benefits of Finnish EU membership are calculated, Finland has done well in the EU. The benefits exceed the costs. However, I cannot definitively prove this. Nobody can. Therefore, doubt remains: is someone still eating at my table?
     
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 20.4.2006


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Finland is a lightweight net contributor to EU (13.4.2006)
  Finnish net contribution to European Union set new record last year (12.4.2006)

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