Earlier this summer the Foreign & European Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives had occasion to visit Finland apart from three Baltic states.

During our discussions with government officials as well as with our counterparts in the Finnish parliament we were afforded deep insight into the priorities of the Finnish Presidency.

The Finns have been working on this Presidency for quite some time so much so that in September last year they presented to parliament a document outlining the general political priorities of such a presidency.

The latest Preliminary Agenda was submitted to parliament in May.

What particularly struck me about Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen’s address to parliament on 21 June regarding this presidency was the objective, down to earth manner in which he spoke of the EU’s current problems and lack of confidence in itself.

He began by making it clear that the Union’s decision making capacity could have been better and that the citizens are getting more critical towards it.

He felt that the most urgent need was for more political will.

On the whole issue of whether we should go for a New or Old Europe the Finnish PM stated that although Finland’s objective is a New Europe, it must be one which is not divided into new and old Member States but which shows its strength in new ways particularly regarding the economy, external relations and security.

Vanhanen went on to admit that the Union’s actions must be based on the mandate given by its citizens. In plain English it must be legitimate.

He felt quite correctly that at the core of the Union’s problems lies the worrying fact that in the eyes of its citizens its legitimacy has weakened. So much so that people cannot see what use the Union is to them.

Coming from a seasoned politician who is not known as a Eurosceptic this is a worrying statement indeed. He attributes it mainly to the EU’s somewhat weak performance, particularly in decision making.

He argues all along that the Union faces two key problems: weak legitimacy and ineffective decision-making.

The reason the Finnish PM feels that citizens do not consider the Union useful is because they cannot see it influencing their own lives for the better.

The consequence of certain Member States’ actions is that we are living in a Union that cannot deliver and citizens cannot see the impact of the Union on their own lives.

When I spoke of a ‘Finnish’ Finnish Presidency I was not being tongue in cheek.

I said so primarily because those issues that seem to be high on the agenda of the Finnish national government also feature prominently in the Finnish Presidency of the EU.

Amongst these I find the following:

• a focus on competitiveness and innovation policy

• external relations with particular attention to Russia, even when it comes to external energy relations

• a social policy as reflected in the fact that the Presidency does not want to achieve competitiveness at any cost regardless of the consequences.

This commitment is reflected in the Finns’ decision to host a Tripartite Social Summit where they will have the opportunity to present their Finnish Models.

When it comes to environmental policy their priorities are climate change and (surprise, surprise) the Baltic Sea.

In external relations apart from including relations with what the PM describes as their most important neighbour Russia they also intend to focus on the so called Northern Dimension.

There is something I particularly like about the way Finland operates. It is focused and efficient in its own quiet way without resorting to any frills or scene-stealing.

I am sure that it will be in this spirit that the Finnish Presidency will be conducted.

About time Minister Frendo!

It is useless to talk about the firm stand that Minister Frendo took recently on the morrow of the business breakfast when Bob Geldof claimed that EU assistance to Malta was a joke. He had done something similar a year ago too. But in the interim period we have had nothing but reassurances from both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister at the end of each EU Summit that attention and high regard had been given to Malta’s concerns about the illegal immigration issue by the European Union.

It is not only the man in the street that is running out of patience with this government’s slack approach but even the church official organ Il-Gens recently claimed that although Malta might have had its way in certain summit declarations on illegal immigration, in tangible terms it had received very little assistance.

Finland is pledging to give priority attention to this issue. Such reassurances were also given by their Premier to PM Lawrence Gonzi when they met in Helsinki recently.

But having grown very cynical about the whole issue I will only find comfort in such words when they translate themselves into reality.

Meanwhile regardless of our concern about government’s flip-flop approach to the whole issue, we shall continue to support it in all international fora as we are duty bound to do.

Very little solidarity for Minister Gatt

The Opposition motion of censure against Minister Gatt might have been defeated in Parliament but what struck me most was that the majority of Nationalist MPs who stood up to speak during the 10-hour long debate in the House of Representatives hardly found time – with one or two exceptions – to defend Minister Austin Gatt.

This goes to show that many gave the impression – albeit indirectly – that they felt that deep down the Opposition was quite justified in expressing its concern about the Minister’s arrogance.

e-mail : [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the Main Opposition Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs and IT