“The Return Act has an important purpose, but the proposal cannot be accepted without key changes,” he said in Parliament House. “If Finland’s general interests are not realized, Finland can vote against the law.”
“The government also considers it important that renovation measures are voluntary for landowners. The most important measure is to reduce Finland’s costs, which are estimated to rise to 930 million euros. This is definitely the most important thing we strive for.”
Marin assured on the one hand that the country is committed to stopping the loss of biodiversity and recognizes the need to improve the state of the environment, but confirmed on the other hand that the government is sending a message that forest policy is strictly within the scope of national decision-making. factors.
The matter had pushed the coalition government to the brink of crisis, because it was difficult to find a language acceptable to the centre. According to the information, after dozens of hours of preparatory work, the answer was revised relatively significantly in terms of language, but not necessarily in terms of the actual content.
“If an acceptable overall agreement is not reached in the negotiations, Finland has reason to vote against the result. Finland forms its final position on the content of the proposal and the voting decision in the final stage of the negotiations by evaluating its overall interests”, revised answer. reads.
An unverified strain similarly referred to “acceptable overall contract”, which specifies that its prerequisite is a significant reduction of costs and securing or increasing the room for maneuver and flexibility of the member countries in terms of renovation measures.
The center’s parliamentary group considered the amendments a victory.
“I have noticed that our coalition partners have criticized us quite harshly. I think it’s an indication that the end result is exactly what we expected. And that’s the way it should be”, Minister of Finance Annika Saarikko (Center) stated For Helsingin Sanomat.
The opposition parties claimed yesterday that the government should adopt a clearly negative position on the proposal, which was presented by e.g. Sanni Grahn-Laasonen (NCP).
“The Commission’s proposal on the EU Return Act is so blatantly unfair and expensive for Finland that it should be completely clear that Finland should have opposed the law like Sweden,” he stated.
Riikka PurraThe chairman of the Basic Finns believes that the proposal should be rejected outright in principle. “We can’t bear to rob Finland’s forests a lot, but we also can’t bear to rob them a little less,” he declared.
Sari EssayahThe chairman of the Christian Democrats drew attention to the apparent differences in the ruling party, especially between the center and the Green Alliance. “There has been a competition to deliver at least two different messages from Finland to Brussels,” he said.
Aleksi Teivainen – HT
Source: The Nordic Page