Details

The Luncheon Roundtable „The Challenges for the Finnish EU presidency” in the European Office of the Konrad-Adenauer- Foundation (KAS) on June 21st at 13 o´ clock offered a discussion platform for numerous MEPs, Commission members, experts, representatives of enterprises and the civil society.

In his speech, Ville Itälä, Member of the European Parliament and Vice-Chairman of the EPP-ED group, stressed three main aspects for the Finnish presidency:

First, he insisted on the necessity of an intense cooperation in energy policy, implicitly refering to the Ukrainian energy crisis. Even though energy policy still was largely a national issue, a common strategy should be developed. The debate should also be enlarged on a further and intensive use of nuclear energy.

Secondly, the recent political developments, especially in energy policy showed the importance of a close partnership between Russia and the European Union. In this context, Itälä deplored a much too negative picture of Russia in the European Parliament and pleaded for an open, but intense dialogue with Moscow. Therefore, a more constructive and not purely negative position of the European Parliament towards Russia was necessary. On the other hand, the EU should also make efforts in order to understand the Russian way of thinking. Moreover, a common position of the different actors of the European Union towards Moscow would be, according to Itälä, unavoidable.

Thirdly, Itälä dealt with the growing euroscepticism in the Finnish population, which also was an important challenge for the Finnish presidency. While all relevant political parties supported the European Constition, the people became more and more sceptical. Nevertheless, they were not against the text itself, but rather unsatisfied with the present EU- performance as a whole: On the one hand, certainly the indifference of the younger generation, who did not see the link between peace and the European integration would have a considerable impact. But on the other hand, the weak performance of France and Germany concerning the Stability and Growth Pact, as well as a too fast enlargment, would be responsible for the euroscepticism. Because of this, the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU should only take place, if the countries fulfilled all the criteria.

Concerning the European Constitution, Itälä declared himself in favor of a pursuit of the ratification process. Nevertheless, before proceeding with this treaty, the EU should convince its citizens with concrete policy outcomes. In addition, Itälä left open the question about a concrete timetable for the European Constitution, but underlined the necessity to promote the present version of the Constitutional Treaty.

Several participants suggested other possible policy fields for a closer cooperation: environnement policy or the Arctic cooperation. As to energy policy, a participant underlined the dichotomy between the enforced debate about the EU role in energy policy and the refusal to give more competences to the European Commission in energy matters.

Moreover, the difficult search for a compromise in an enlarged Union was expressed. Furthermore, the problem of a common policy towards Russia was stressed with perspective to Eastern EU and especially the Baltic countries.

Finally, the importance of an open and non-ideological debate on nuclear energy was highlighted, under the condition of its safe and responsible use. In this context, Itälä illustrated the positive effects of nuclear energy in Finland, which could be an answer for the present energy debate.