Speech by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen at the opening of the "URAKKANA EUROOPPA" (Europe as a Job of Work) campaign in Helsinki on 19.9.2002

We Finns have nearly eight years' experience of European Union membership. We have gone on from theory to practice and we have our conceptions of both the positive and the negative effects of membership. Both Finland and the surrounding world have continued to change at a frantic pace.

Many important processes which matter a lot to the Finns, the citizens of the other member states and all Europeans are in progress within the EU: the Convention, enlargement as well as the European home region's development in a globalising world. Success in these requires very broad cooperation. In addition to the European Union's own institutions, the member states must be alert. Nor by this do I mean only the government and parliament, but also the full spectrum of civil society from the trade-union movement and business life to environmental organisations and consumer activists.

The Convention is not just about organising our cooperation, such as the composition of the Commission or developing the functions of the European Council. They are as such important questions, because after all they touch on our national right of self-determination. What is also involved is strengthening the fundamental rights of Europeans. Thus security also comes into the picture: both classical security policy and promoting everyday security. Deepening cooperation between police and border authorities is essential, but we must also take care to promote other security in our lives. Employment, workplace rules, the state of the environment and food safety are elements that affect the quality of our everyday lives.

On the basis of our experience of membership, it is easier for us Finns to see where the opportunities of EU actions lie. Many matters are best decided on locally or nationally, some should be done in close cooperation and others are best taken care of through community decision making. The content is what matters most, but the form also has its significance.

I consider it important that the Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference following it produce definitions of which totalities of matters require communitarian decision making and which ones should be left for the nation-states to take care of. It will not be possible to produce an unambiguous list of powers, but the general principle can probably be agreed on. I wish you, esteemed trade-unionists, the activity to play a part in the civic discourse that has now been opened. Now is the time for action.


******

Enlargement of the European Union has begun at the same time as the Convention. It is probably today's most important European process. There are many opportunities and promises associated with enlargement, but also challenges and risks. It would be a real risk, however, if the EU failed to enlarge. This would eventually cause a divided Europe, at least in the economic sense. That is a risk that we cannot afford to take. Finland supports enlargement, but we must continue our work in both the applicant countries and the existing member states to minimise the risks.

The countries that have applied for EU membership have undergone a rapid and thorough transformation. We in Finland have had a lot longer to build a democracy and a functioning market-economy system. The applicant countries are having to fast-track all of this. Democracy is a lot more than elections; it presupposes a functioning civil society. But of course you trade-unionists know that very well indeed.

Where civil society needs support to grow in the future member states, it could also do with some invigoration in the existing ones. We ourselves must see to it that our own legislation or collective labour agreements are observed. Fortunately, the European labour-market organisations have had a strengthening role in the functioning of the Union as the Single Market evolves. I believe this development can continue. Nevertheless it is obvious that also the labour-market organisations must be more active and capable as actors on the EU level as well.


**********

We in Finland have a lot of good things going for us. We have good and honest governance. According to Transparency International's statistics, there is less corruption in Finland than anywhere else in the world. Our country has on numerous occasions ranked highest with respect to both competitiveness and sustainable development. Our schoolchildren did best in international reading and writing tests. It would be worth our while doing our best to make sure that this continues to be the case. Nevertheless we will not cope on our own; we need interaction and cooperation.

I believe that enlargement will enhance security and increase prosperity in Europe. In addition, an expanding and well-functioning home region will equip us better to cope and wield influence in a globalising world.

Globalisation directly affects the EU and its members. Although the EU countries are home to only 6% of the world's population, their share of global trade is 40%. What attitude should we Europeans adopt to globalisation? How does globalisation affect, for example, the lives and livelihoods of Finnish wage-earners?

Many have said that acting globally calls for global rules. In order for people to be able to feel that their lives are more secure and for companies to be able to operate stably, we also need a strengthening of democracy and human rights in addition to building a society founded on the rule of law. A strengthening of democracy in working life is one of the demands that people are making.

In shaping the ground rules for a market economy, however, we must remember to preserve a certain freedom and space for the kind of creativity that supports healthy enterprise and dynamic development of the economy.

In the nation-state we have been able to build these rules, gradually and usually after careful deliberation. Now we have been trying to do the same in the European Union. Many national-level provisions are nowadays, where applicable, in force also as EU-level norms.

One example that comes to mind from the sphere of working life is codetermination, workplace democracy. The development of codetermination in Finland gained momentum when the then Prime Minister Rafael Paasio made a speech at the Valmet shipyard in Helsinki in 1967. After many twists and turns, legislation on cooperation in companies was enacted in Finland in the late 1970s. Other EU countries have similar legislation.

Paasio's speech is still of topical relevance. A society cannot contain democratic and undemocratic segments. Nor can we imagine that international agreements and arrangements would apply only to or liberalise the operations of companies. The prerequisites for agreements with cross-border application should also be improved on both the EU and the global levels.

However, this kind of legislation, which originally came into being on the national level, has proved limited in its area of application as corporate activities internationalise. The European Union responded to this by adopting a directive on European works councils in 1994. The directive applies to multinational companies which have at least 1,000 employees in the EU countries and at least 150 employees in two countries. A works council must be set up in all companies meeting these criteria irrespective of domicile; in other words, the directive applies also to, for example, American and Japanese companies.

In the future, a European Works Council will certainly be a more important forum for cooperation between employer and employees. When we remember the position and importance of multinational companies in the international economy, we can also imagine that works councils could be useful to all involved also on the global level. I know that many companies and international professional organisations have concluded cooperation agreements of various levels and even set up global company councils.

The European Union and the social model - including company councils - enshrined in its community legislation could perhaps serve as one example also when we are considering the need for global rules and their implementation. The principal actors on the global level should be the UN and its special agencies as well as the World Trade Organisation and international financial institutions.

Another model that could prove useful in reforming international financial institutions is the system used by the OECD; it permits representatives of both employees and employers to participate in the organisation's work along with government representatives.


***

The global development is still problematic. It is uneven and often unpredictable. Early last spring, the International Labour Organisation appointed its Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation, which I have the honour to co-chair together with President Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania. Our task is to make proposals as to how as many individuals, peoples and countries as possible will be able to share the benefits of globalisation and as few as possible will suffer its drawbacks. It seems fair to say that, looking at the worldwide picture, the member states and citizens of the European Union have benefited more than anything else from globalisation, although internally there are also losers to be found among us. The Union can also be both a useful experience and an accelerator of progress to accomplish a decent life for the people of the world.

Our Commission's task is first to ascertain facts. It has highlighted the main outlines and dynamics of the globalisation process.

The second step was to examine prevailing conceptions. This includes also a broadly-based dialogue with various interests and NGOs on both the national and the regional levels. Later this autumn, the Commission will also give a separate hearing to representatives of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, with which all of the organisers of this event are affiliated.

Third, the Commission is deliberating the consequences of globalisation. It is examining how globalisation is affecting employment, work worthy of human dignity, poverty, economic growth and human development in various parts of the world.

Fourth, the Commission will seek, with the aid of dialogue, those elements on the basis of which a broad consensus can be built and examine how the resources of various actors can be mobilised for the common good.

Fifth, the Commission will launch a process through which key questions of globalisation can be deliberated. The Commission's work is supposed to be completed in the latter half of next year, but we know already now that the matter will not end there. At its best, however, our work will enable significant progress to be made towards managing this complex phenomenon and sharing its benefits more fairly.

I believe that cooperation will enable the world to make progress. In spite of all disappointments, there is also much that gives us faith. The awareness of our shared responsibility for this beautiful planet that was awakened in us at Rio ten years ago and of poverty at the Millennium Summit and the Johannesburg gathering just ended is much stronger than it used to be.

The Finnish wage-earners' organisations and the Workers' Educational Association are now initiating a broadly-based discourse on the future of the European Union. I wish it success. The theme is not an easy one. The discourse demands study and adding to our own knowledge. I believe nevertheless that also in this situation Finnish wage-earners will be willing to recognise the responsibility which they share with their European colleagues for their future and will accept the challenge. At the same time I hope we shall remember our place as part of the broader world, where the future of every region is linked to that of the totality.