In defence of common values: The Finnish EU Council Presidency 2019
| Author | Hanna Tuominen |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221077639 |
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221077639
Cooperation and Conflict
2023, Vol. 58(1) 23 –41
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00108367221077639
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
In defence of common values:
The Finnish EU Council
Presidency 2019
Hanna Tuominen
Abstract
Finland promoted a value-based agenda as the President of the European Union (EU) Council
in 2019. The focus was especially on the defence of the rule of law principle. A role as a strong
value promoter departs from the pragmatic and cautious tradition of Finnish EU policy. In this
article, I will ask why Finland chose to promote values, and what kind of political debate preceded
its Presidency term. Second, I will look at the actual promotion of the common values during
the Presidency. Third, I will provide some evaluations of the success of Finland’s value-based
approach. The analysis draws from comprehensive documentary sources related to Finnish EU
policy and her Presidency term, and from 33 semi-structured research interviews among the key
Finnish politicians, civil servants and civil society organization representatives in 2020. The article
shows that values were thoroughly debated before the term and their relevance increased as the
Presidency approached. Finland also succeeded in promoting several values, especially by linking
them to practical questions. The article argues that evaluating the success of Finland’s approach
is more contentious, which may be tackled several ways.
Keywords
common values, Council Presidency, EU, Finland, rule of law
Introduction
Discussion about the European values has become a highly topical issue in the European
Union (EU). The deteriorating respect for common values, especially democracy and the
rule of law in some Member States, has been a major concern. The situation has been
characterized as a rule of law crisis or, more generally, the crisis of European values
(Mos, 2020). The member states have either been unable to achieve unanimity or lack
effective instruments to intervene in systematic undermining of common values (Closa
and Kochenov, 2016). The lack of respect for EU values can create normative divisions
within the Union and decrease its external political and moral credibility. The value
Corresponding author:
Hanna Tuominen, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Ylästöntie 82b, Po Box 54 (Unioninkatu 37),
Vantaa 01690, Finland.
Email: hanna.t.tuominen@helsinki.fi
1077639CAC0010.1177/00108367221077639Cooperation and ConflictTuominen
research-article2022
Article
24 Cooperation and Conflict 58(1)
debate has become politicized, and the EU’s value policing has created tensions between
member states and EU institutions. Political initiatives to link the EU budget and respect
for the rule of law led to confrontation between Hungary and Poland and the EU. This
situation raises the question of how to ensure respect for EU values, and who is the most
legitimate actor to advance the value-based agenda.
In this heated atmosphere, Finland acted as the President of the EU Council in the
second half of 2019. Finland underlined the role of the EU as a community of values and
prioritized the promotion of the rule of law. In its programme, Finland acknowledged the
questioning of common values (Finnish Government, 2019a). Such norm advocacy by a
small member state is facilitated when it fits the overall ambition of the EU (Björkdahl,
2008). However, a strong value promoter role departs from the pragmatic and cautious
tradition of Finnish EU policy. This article asks why and how Finland ended up focusing
on values. Second, it will outline how Finland promoted values and how the value-based
approach succeeded. The article is based on documentary sources related to Finnish EU
policy and the presidential term and on 33 research interviews among the key Finnish
politicians, civil servants and civil society representatives in 2020.
The Council Presidency is an important task for an individual EU member state, espe-
cially small ones. Bunse (2009) has called the Presidency the ‘guardian of equality’
between big and small members (p. 28). However, the opportunity of the President to
influence wider EU policy agenda has divided scholarly opinions (Alexandrova and
Timmermans, 2013; Häge, 2017; Thomson, 2008; Warntjen, 2013). A norm is that the
President should be an impartial, neutral actor, who puts national interests aside. Studies
on rotating presidencies have concentrated on external context and national conditions
(Vandecasteele and Bossuyt, 2014) and comparisons between presidencies (Elgström,
2003; Panke and Gurol, 2018). Since the Lisbon Treaty, the role of the Presidency has
diminished, leaving the President to deal with low politics issues (Wivel, 2018: 10). To
improve continuity and effectiveness, agenda setting is tied to the collaboration in the
Presidency troika and to the strategy of the European Council (Van Gruisen, 2019;
Warntjen, 2013). The 6-month Presidency is also short and seldom proceeds as expected,
which leaves the President less room for manoeuvre. However, I argue that individual
presidencies can influence the EU agenda by raising specific issues for discussion, allo-
cating time for debate and advancing compromises (Häge, 2017). Influence is the extent
to which actions result in outcomes that correspond to the priorities of the presidency
programme. I acknowledge how difficult the evaluation of particular presidencies can be
(see Toneva-Metodieva, 2020). The focus of evaluation is the member states’ norm advo-
cacy in the current ‘value crisis’. I claim that individual presidencies can have influence,
especially on contentious topics. This was the case during the Finnish presidency, as the
new institutional cycle and the newly elected European Parliament and Commission
started their work.
This article adds to the literature on Finnish EU policy, wider-ranging Council
Presidency studies and to research on small state influence in the EU. In the case of small
states, an efficient strategy to influence is to act in accordance with the broader goals of
the Union and choose a few clear priorities (Arter, 2000; Grøn and Wivel, 2011: 529;
Panke and Gurol, 2018). Small member states are well positioned to push particular,
more disputed issues onto the agenda (Raunio and Tiilikainen, 2003: 7). They may also
To continue reading
Request your trial