Katainen government formation and ministers in Finland

This blog post is about the next prime minister of Finland, his election and government formation, as well as the ministers of the new Finnish cabinet.

PM Jyrki Katainen

The public broadcaster YLE reports that the leader of the National Coalition Party (NCP, EPP) and outgoing finance minister Jyrki Katainen has been officially nominated by president Tarja Halonen to become prime minister of Finland.

YLE also offers a portrait of Katainen (39), about to be elected later today.


Electing the prime minister

The election of the prime minister is on the agenda (in Finnish) of the Parliament 22 June 2011.

The main provisions of the Constitution of Finland on government formation:

Section 61 - Formation of the Government

The Parliament elects the Prime Minister, who is thereafter appointed to the office by the President of the Republic.
The President appoints the other Ministers in accordance with a proposal made by the Prime Minister.
Before the Prime Minister is elected, the groups represented in the Parliament negotiate on the political programme and composition of the Government. On the basis of the outcome of these negotiations, and after having heard the Speaker of the Parliament, the President informs the Parliament of the nominee for Prime Minister. The nominee is elected Prime Minister if his or her election has been supported by more than half of the votes cast in an open vote in the Parliament.
If the nominee does not receive the necessary majority, another nominee shall be put forward in accordance with the same procedure. If the second nominee fails to receive the support of more than half of the votes cast, the election of the Prime Minister shall be held in the Parliament by open vote. In this event, the person receiving the most votes is elected.
The Parliament shall be in session when the Government is being appointed and when the composition of the Government is being essentially altered.


Section 62 - Statement on the programme of the Government

The Government shall without delay submit its programme to the Parliament in the form of a statement. The same applies when the composition of the Government is essentially altered.

Ministers nominated

Formally, they are going to be appointed by the president, as proposed by the new prime minister. In practice the future ministers have been nominated by the political parties joining the coalition government.

The international edition of the daily Helsingin Sanomat presents the ministers of the six-party government in two instalments, first the cabinet members from the National Coalition Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Left Alliance and the Swedish People's Party.

Monday, the Green League and the Christian Democratic Party nominated their ministers, HS International reported. (By the way, there is a typo in the name of Tarja Cronberg, who is going to replace Heidi Hautala MEP in the European Parliament. Correct: Tarja, as in Tarja Halonen, the president.)



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The prize-winning euroblogger Nosemonkey has returned with a medley on the Greek drama (tradegy?) currently on stage in capitals around Europe: The euro crisis: What next? - What's your prediction?

How much EU legislation in member state UK? Nosemonkey and House of Commons Library

On 13 October 2010 the European Parliament awarded its journalism prizes to for excellent media work on Europe. Among the four categories, the prize for Internet journalism went to the Euroblog pioneer James Clive-Matthews, also known as Nosemonkey.



You can read the winning blog post: What percentage of laws come from the EU? (2 June 2009)


On the very day of the award ceremony in the European Parliament, across the Channel the House of Commons Library informed subscribers about the publication of its research paper 10/62, which presents a reworked view on the role of EU laws in Britain:




How much legislation comes from Europe? (13 October 2010; 59 pages)



This fits nicely with the EU law theme, or more narrowly EU business regulation, we have been looking at on Grahnlaw, in the blog posts How much EU law is there? Smart regulation and impact assessments (13 October 2010) and Smart Regulation in the European Union (14 October 2010).



The summary conclusion of the UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 10/62 is (page 1):

Using statistics from national law databases and the EU’s EUR-Lex database, it is possible to estimate the proportion of national laws based on EU laws. In the UK data from these sources provided estimates that suggest that over the twelve-year period from 1997 to 2009 6.8% of primary legislation (Statutes) and 14.1% of secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) had a role in implementing EU obligations, although the degree of involvement varied from passing reference to explicit implementation. Sectoral studies suggest that the agriculture forms the highest area of EU influence and defence the lowest. The British Government estimates that around 50% of UK legislation with a significant economic impact originates from EU legislation.

Besides the indicative numbers (percentages) the study is interesting due to its discussion about the difficulties of quantitative comparisons and especially qualitative assessments of the influence of EU legislation on national law-making.

The various aspects and uncertainties covered make the Research Paper into an educational tool for those who are interested in various forms of EU level decision-making and interaction with the national level, naturally in the United Kingdom, but also elsewhere: in EU member states Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium, as well as non-EU states Norway and Iceland.

The Research Paper refers to popular (mis)conceptions and often repeated quotes, including Euromyths, as well as a host of studies which have tried to uncover both percentages and influences of EU law in the member states.



Comments

The frontlines in the debate about EU impact have not always been clear-cut. Opponents of the European Union (euphemistically called eurosceptics) have decried the “intrusiveness” of EU legislation, whereas pro-European may have exaggerated the importance of the EU.

It looks clear that the proportion of EU legislation is much smaller if we look at all areas of legislation than if we study policy sectors affecting businesses.

There are also huge differences between EU policy areas. The common agricultural policy (CAP) affects farmers and the common fisheries policy (CFP) fishermen, whereas defence is almost exempt from legislation derived from the EU.

I recommend reading the House of Commons Library Research Paper 10/62, which offers a wide range of studies and opinions on these questions.

I am going to add only a few more comments on certain details.



After Nosemonkey’s blog post and as part of the following discussion, I presented a summary of the findings of Yves Bertoncini in the Grahnlaw entry How much law is EU law? (6 June 2009). The Research Paper offers more details on Bertoncini’s study, on page 8 and pages 31-32.


The Library Research Paper refers to the European Commission’s 26th Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (2008) (page 8):

“At the end of 2008, the rules of the Treaty were supplemented by some 8,200 regulations and just under 1,900 directives in force throughout the 27 Member States”.

There are now updated figures, because just before the publication of the Research Paper, the latest annual report was published on 1 October 2010, as noted in my 13 October blog post:



27th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009); Brussels, 1.10.2010 COM(2010) 538 final (12 pages)

If we compare the reports, we can see that the numbers of regulations and directives have fallen significantly during 2009 (page 2). First the quote in question:

At the end of 2009, EU law comprised, apart from the rules of the Treaty, some 6140 regulations and just under 1820 directives in force throughout the 27 Member States.

The number of regulations has decreased by about 2060 and there are around 80 directives less than a year earlier.

Again, the pure numbers tell us little about the impact of EU legislation. The institutions of the European Union have pursued a “better regulation” agenda and a “better lawmaking” agenda. Obsolete legal acts have been taken off the statute book (acquis communautaire). Simplification exercises have resulted in recast acts, which can integrate two or more narrower acts. Some of the disappearances are more technical than substantial, even if more comprehensive acts add ease of use, as do consolidated or updated versions.

There have also been real efforts to “cut red tape”, but a more detailed look at the different simplification measures goes beyond the purpose of this blog post.




Ralf Grahn




P.S. Eurogoblin, one of the editorial team of the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu, has started experimenting with a daily EU Morning Briefing, which mixes events with personal comments. Worth following.

Nosemonkey and Jon Worth: Founding Fathers of Euroblogging

In a blog entry Jon Worth recalled that his Euroblog turned five years old (a venerable age in the online world).



At the same time, Jon reminded that in the world of Euroblogging in English, only Nosemonkey had been at it longer.



Both jonworth and Nosemonkey were feted like Founding Fathers by members of the core Euroblogosphere on Twitter, the medium of choice for quick interaction between bloggers on European affairs.

Nosemonkey and Jon Worth have drawn much inspiration from the fertile soil of England, where anti-EU tabloids constantly strive for new lows in their reporting and commenting on the European Union, and a large part of the public is uninformed enough to swallow anything, as long as it is negative.



When the European Parliament rapporteur on media mistrusted the reliability of social media as sources, Jon was right to point out the stupidity of the attitude:

Why the hell should we inherently trust m'stream media?

There are, of course, social media players as reckless with the truth as many virulently anti-EU British mainstream publications with huge readership (often mutually reinforcing), but I have also seen quality blogging on par with and sometimes surpassing the standards of even the best publications in English.

Even if the impact of conscientious Eurobloggers is small, quality blogging on EU affairs is a laudable pursuit. Checking facts and accounting for sources are foundations for good writing on relevant themes. Generous, but critical blog discussion could be stepped up, because it adds an important element of quality control.

The Founding Fathers have blazed a trail in the European social media world.




Ralf Grahn

How much law is EU law?

A while ago Nosemonkey sparked off a lengthy discussion by asking: What percentage of laws come from the EU? (2 June 2009)



***

Over at the French think tank Notre Europe, Yves Bertoncini has published an assessment of the proportion of EU legislation: La législation nationale d’origine communautaire : briser le mythe des 80% (Les Brefs de Notre Europe No 13, mai 2009).




Bertoncini notes that the 80 per cent figure has caught on rapidly among both anti-Europeans and Euro-enthusiasts. It is difficult to reach a reliable figure, when assessing two different legal systems, but many have not been especially diligent in explaining that.

On 1 July 2008 the acquis communautaire comprised 28,031 legal acts (secondary acts, based on the treaties). Of these, 9,685 were Directives or Regulations.

Each year, the European Community produced between 2,181 (from 1978 to 2007) and 2,744 (from 1998 to 2007) Directives and Regulations.

In 2008 there were 2,249 Regulations and 247 Directives published in the Official Journal of the European Union (total 2,496).

The proportion of Community norms to French norms was a little less than 15 per cent.

The most heavily regulated areas were agriculture with about 42.6 per cent of all Regulations and Directives, the internal market including free movement with about 20 per cent and external relations (technical, economic and financial) with about 10 per cent.

The proportion of Community norms among legal norms applicable in France vary hugely between different sectors:

• Almost half in the agricultural sector
• About 20 per cent in the field of the economy and “foreign affairs”
• A little less than 5 per cent in “ecology”
• Less than 2 per cent in ten other sectors studied

Even given the methodological difficulties, Bertoncini concludes that the proportion of Community norms is closer to 20 than to 80 per cent.


Ralf Grahn

Nosemonkey’s EUtopia distinguishes fact from fiction

Nosemonkey’s EUtopia is one of the top Euroblogs. Far from enthusiastic about how the European Union (mal)functions, J Clive Matthews explains how the EU works and patiently engages in discussion with commentators, a number of them with the simplistic views of British anti-EU campaigners.

Nosemonkey is worth following continuously, but this time I would like to mention two posts, which try to set some persistent myths straight:

UKIP’s “Britain paying the EU £40 million a day” claim vs the REAL costs of UK EU membership (22 May 2009).



What percentage of laws come from the EU? (2 June 2009).



Include the comments in your reading, and wonder at Nosemonkey’s patience.



Ralf Grahn

European elections: Talibans to the rescue?

It is always interesting to read Nosemonkey, but I wonder at his reasoning in Why voting for a eurosceptic party is a good thing for the EU (23 May 2009).



Naturally, the European Union needs critics and reformers, but that that is not what added representation for the British National Party (BNP) or the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is going to bring. There is nothing ‘skeptic’ about them. They want the European Union to fail and the United Kingdom to secede regardless of reform issues.

What Nosemonkey is doing is akin to calling for the Talibans to reform the United States.

***

Julien Frisch is looking for the kind of criticism needed to improve the European project in Why we might need EU-sceptic parties (24 May 2009).




"The problem is that EU-sceptic parties’ critique to anything the EU does can easily be discredited as if it was just done to harm the Union, as a matter of principle and not as a constructive approach to make the Union better, even when they are right.

I think we will need heavily EU-critical parties with a true love to the basic idea of such a supranational entity. So far, this critique too often comes from the extremes, but it needs to comes from the centres of the political spectrum, to make it more credible.

But maybe those political forces will first need the EU-sceptic pitbulls to smooth the way before they get their window of opportunity to make the EU a better polity than it is today…"


***

It is a corruption of language to gather Taliban-like BNP or UKIP under the banner of ‘skepticisim’, and it is a folly to see them as saviours. Eurotoxic EU reform is a non-starter.

The inadequate treaties of the European Union, including the Lisbon Treaty, and the EU’s obvious shortcomings need a different kind of critique.

The basic questions are how to enhance the security and to improve the prosperity of EU citizens in a turbulent world.

We can become more secure, if the European Union is able to speak with one voice in the world, and more prosperous if the EU embraces economic reform fit for the 21st century.

For this the EU needs real powers, but they have to be legitimate, based on representative democracy and with accountable government at EU level.

EU 2.0 is well beyond the parochial world view of our national governments and the mainstream views of those wedded to the current ‘institutional balance’, but even a hundred ‘Nigel Farages’ in the European Parliament is not going to bring about needed reform, or even the discussion needed to address the right issues.

During more than three decades British tabloids have managed to poison the atmosphere, but they have not even started reflection about how to improve the European Union. Why should more of the same be any better?


Ralf Grahn

Nosemonkey for hire: editing, writing & online content

J Clive Matthews of Nosemonkey’s EUtopia is not only a fellow Euroblogger with learning and temperament to discuss the European Union critically and to explain its workings to his less informed and more opinionated readers.

Professionally J Clive Matthews has an impressive record as editor, writer and online content producer. When communication skills are needed more than ever, Matthews is looking for new opportunities to serve clients.

Don’t let this opportunity pass!



Ralf Grahn