A Timely Reminder of the Failures of Europe’s Political Leaders

Next Sunday, we will once again move the clocks forward by one hour. This was reported by Uutissuomalainen, according to which “the proposal to end clock changes is still awaiting consideration by the EU Council. Not all member states have formed their positions.”

The article also stated that “the European Commission wants to promote the abolition of the daylight saving time directive. Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism Apóstolos Tzitzikostas launched an evaluation in February to examine the EU-wide impacts of clock changes.”

The report is expected to be completed by the end of the year, the Ministry of Transport and Communications said in a press release. After that, the Commission will assess further actions.

* * *

In this respect, it is rather remarkable that this is by no means a new issue. As I myself wrote already six years ago, “perhaps an even more illustrative example of the EU’s inability to make decisions was once again highlighted last night. We still had to move the hands of the clock, even though a majority of EU citizens would like to end it and both the Commission and Parliament have already made decisions on the matter.”

And that is not all, because as much as eleven and a half years ago I could state that “studies have shown that changing the clocks is harmful overall, and therefore the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare has recommended abandoning the practice.” This has not changed over the years, as a scientific review article published last year found that “the transition to daylight saving time was associated with harmful effects ranging from reduced sleep duration and quality to increased sleepiness.”

* * *

Therefore, it is worth repeating once again the fact that this endless clock-changing farce is likely to weaken people’s faith and trust in the European Union—if it has not already made it a laughing stock. And what is worse, year after year it shows ever more clearly that this is not merely about people’s feelings but about harsh reality.

Indeed, the clock-changing farce undeniably demonstrates the shocking incompetence of our continent’s leaders, which is undoubtedly one reason why we have fallen behind the United States both economically and militarily, as the striking chart of GDP development below clearly shows.

Unfortunately, clock changes and economic problems are not the only areas in which European leaders have failed. At the same time, they have also managed to fill many member states with welfare migrants from developing countries—while the birth rate of the native population has dropped dramatically.

European politicians have also succeeded in weakening the continent’s military capability to such an extent that Russia has been able to wage its war in Ukraine for years without the EU being able to intervene. And even worse, they have encouraged the U.S. president to question the usefulness of NATO—developments that could ultimately lead to the loss of Europe’s future and the way of life of its people.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Carbon Sink Policy Lacks Cost-Effectiveness
Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?
Changing the Clocks Reduces Trust in the European Union

A Professor’s Ten-Point Plan to Fix Europe’s Immigration Policy

Finnish emeritus Professor Vesa Kanniainen has made a list related to immigration policy.

1. The EU member states must abandon the universal social security model throughout Europe.

2. The processing of asylum applications must be moved outside Europe.

3. Financial aid must be stopped for those countries of origin of refugees that refuse to take back their citizens who have not been granted asylum and whose return would therefore not violate the Geneva Convention.

4. Those who have received a negative asylum decision must be required to cooperate and be housed in return centers while waiting for their journey home.

5. Crossing European borders by land, sea, or air must be criminalized when a person does not have a positive asylum decision or valid travel documents.

6. Transport vehicles (such as boats in the Mediterranean) financed by criminal organizations must be confiscated.

7. International cooperation with various countries must be strengthened in order to relocate refugees outside Europe.

8. Visits by those who have been granted asylum to their home country must be prohibited.

9. Family reunifications of asylum seekers must be prohibited or frozen.

10. All foreigners who have received an unconditional or conditional prison sentence must be deported, regardless of how long they have lived in an EU country.

I think the professor’s list is quite good. So good, in fact, that it should be implemented as it is. For that reason, all its points should serve as guiding principles both in the humanitarian decisions of the current European Commission and in Finland’s immigration policy program after 2027.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Two Men Sentenced for Raping Underage Girls
Is Immigration Driving the Nordic Countries Apart?
Why is Somalia unwilling to meet Finland’s conditions for continuing development cooperation?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
https://professorinajatuksia.blogspot.com/2025/11/vesa-kanniaisen-lista-kannattaisi.html

EU Commission Should Take Migration and Related Crime Seriously

A Finnish district court has sentenced Kerime Örcel, 30, and Johan Araf Josef Otterdahl, 22, to long prison terms in a criminal case involving the manufacture of a thermos bomb and aggravated drug offenses. In a press conference, the police stated they suspect the planned bombing attack was commissioned by a Swedish criminal organization.

Otterdahl had agreed to detonate the thermos bomb at the entrance of an apartment building in an immigrant-dominated suburb in the Helsinki region and had received the assignment from a Swedish criminal group, which had promised him a reward for carrying out the act. The bomb had a lethal blast radius of approximately three meters and could have caused shrapnel injuries within an 11-meter range.

Örcel was apprehended at the end of September when she transported 157 kilograms of amphetamines and 20,000 ecstasy tablets across the border into Finland. This is the largest single amphetamine seizure in Finnish criminal history. Otterdahl, on the other hand, was arrested later in the autumn.

* * *

The above case is just one example of how the problems of Swedish society are also spreading to Finland as immigrant-background criminals expand their territory across the Baltic Sea. So far, the Finnish police have succeeded quite well in preventing larger problems, but time will tell how long this can continue.

That is why it is important that Swedes also take their problems seriously and prevent them from spreading across the Baltic. Toward Denmark, however, it is already too late, as Swedish criminals now move rather freely across the Danish straits to commit crimes (example).

All of this also demonstrates that the migration-related problems faced by European countries are by no means local, and therefore cannot be resolved solely through local measures. That is why the EU Commission and politicians should take migration into Europe and the related crime seriously—unlike what has happened in recent years.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Getting Populists to Govern Responsibly: What the Netherlands and Finland Can Teach Us
Police to Finnish Graduates: Leave Fireworks, Blades, and Booze at Home
Why Integration Policy Must Confront Cultural Conflicts

Expert Statement Highlights Russian Hybrid Threat Over Migration Across the Mediterranean

The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (Hybrid CoE) has issued a warning about the threat of instrumentalised migration. According to the Centre, "large-scale instrumentalised migration could cause significant problems for Finland's societal peace, as well as public order and security, potentially impairing crisis decision-making and operational capabilities."

The Centre also noted that "it is possible that by exploiting disinformation arising from such a situation, solidarity towards Finland within Europe could be significantly diminished. Should such a hybrid campaign become highly effective, it may pave the way for some unexpected political and military arrangements."

The Centre drew attention to the fact that “unauthorised crossing of Finland’s eastern land border is considerably easier and safer than the hundreds of kilometres of sea travel across the Mediterranean. Therefore, Finland may face even greater pressure than what has traditionally been seen at the Mediterranean. This vulnerability is of a permanent nature, and Russia can exploit this mechanism with minimal effort.”

A representative of the Hybrid CoE also pointed out the EU Commission's stance, which states that "to safeguard the security of the Union and the territorial integrity of its member states, it is essential that member states bordering Russia and Belarus can act decisively and firmly to effectively control the Union’s external borders. Consequently, member states may need to make exceptions to EU regulations if instrumentalised migration threatens the public order, internal security, or national security of the Union and its member states."

* * *

This expert statement was issued in connection with the plans to extend Finland's border security law concerning the eastern frontier. Originally passed as a one-year measure in the summer of 2024, the law sparked intense debate, particularly among the political green-left. As a result, six Social Democrats, one Swedish People's Party representative, and the entire parliamentary groups of the Greens and the Left Alliance voted against it. Despite the objections from MPs who, in effect, aligned themselves with Russia’s position, the law passed in Parliament with the necessary majority: 167 votes to 31.

This spring, the political left has once again voiced pro-Moscow criticism regarding the extension of the border law (one, two, three examples). That is why it is important that the expert statement referenced above not only addressed the actual threats but also clearly highlighted the European Commission’s position, which justifies deviation from EU regulations in cases of instrumentalised migration.

Indeed, it would be an utterly untenable situation if the EU or any of its member states were unable to defend themselves against hostile threats from the East simply because they clung to regulatory frameworks, regardless of the consequences. One would hope this point would be heard—and more importantly, understood—even by the political green-left, though that may be a vain hope.

In the coming weeks, we shall see what kind of spectacle unfolds in the Finnish Parliament and the media as the border security law is revisited. However, it already seems clear that this is nothing more than political theatre, as there are ultimately too few MPs willing to act as Putin’s advocates by opposing Finland’s security interests and reopening the country’s borders to hybrid operations. Still, it is helpful that they reveal themselves so openly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, told that he supports British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s initiatives for a new ceasefire plan in Ukraine. According to the president, Europe currently needs leadership, which Starmer is demonstrating.

Stubb also stated that the winner of Friday’s meeting between Trump, Vance, and Zelensky was Vladimir Putin. However, despite this, the relationship between the United States and Europe remains strong.

For this reason, he urged people to stay calm in a very Finnish way—by advising them to take deep breaths, have a cold plunge, go to the sauna, and think things through. He also promised to return to the matter later.

Beyond that, Stubb did not wish to give instructions to Volodymyr Zelensky either. Instead, Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (NCP) stated that all European countries must strengthen their defense capabilities to the maximum extent, with the goal of being able to defend themselves independently within ten years.

He also noted that Europe is unlikely to reach consensus on this matter, so responsible nations must be ready to make joint decisions—even without those who are unwilling to participate.

It remains to be seen whether Europe will succeed in finding its footing in this changing situation, where military security must also be considered alongside the challenges posed by weak economic growth and internal security. A positive signal in this regard, however, is that the European Commission has just decided to reduce internal EU bureaucracy and regulations to enable economic growth.

To me, it is clear that none of the above issues will be hindered by Finland’s current leadership. That is why it would be beneficial for progress to be made quickly, as democracy may once again bring forth political movements or other leaders whose understanding does not always suffice to recognize facts—let alone act accordingly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Political Rhetoric Like Trump-Zelenskyi’s Has Deep Historical Roots
President of Finland Asked Whether There Are Top Politicians With Serious Intellectual Limitations
Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?

Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges

The text above is my thought that "As long as a society has a true freedom of speech it cannot be completely rotten. However, all totally rotten societies are lacking the true freedom of speech."

The text is placed there because Finns seem to have significant difficulties in accepting freedom of speech. The most recent example of this was provided by the Finnish Green Party, which has decided to leave the social media platform known as X.

According to the party, societal discussion on X is no longer relevant due to the systematic hate speech, conspiracy theories, and disinformation spreading on the platform. They are correct in that all three undeniably occur frequently on X. However, they are wrong in claiming that societal discussion is no longer relevant on that platform, as it has been conducted specifically, explicitly, and practically only there.

Sure, the world is full of social media platforms, but it is precisely on X where open societal discussion has taken place. And it is precisely there where anyone could directly comment on anyone else's posts and provide reasoning. Of course, this often happens in an inappropriate manner, but in my view, both political extremes have been especially guilty of this.

If the Finnish Greens and the broader political left leave X, there is a risk that societal discussion will revert to a time when each ideological group had its own insular forum, making fruitful dialogue—or achieving mutual understanding—practically impossible. And it might not be possible in the future either, not even in the utopian world of the Greens. 

* * *

This relates to the perspective of Finnish Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, who has stated that the EU can impose significant fines and penalties on X if the platform does not meet the Union's requirements. According to her, "In Europe, everyone has freedom of speech and opinion. However, X has a specific obligation, derived from our laws, to assess and mitigate systemic risks related to our electoral systems and public discourse."

Virkkunen's comment arose after X conducted an interview with Alice Weidel, the vice-chair of Germany's second most popular party, the AfD. However, under EU legislation, platforms are required to ensure that certain political views are not favored over others. In other words, the commissioner would like to compel X to also interview representatives of other German parties.

It remains to be seen whether Elon Musk will comply with such demands—or if he will allow others to organize similar interviews on their own, which could then be featured on X. From the perspective of freedom of speech, it would be beneficial if this were possible—after all, Musk himself has emphasized that X is a platform for citizen journalism, where everyone can create their own content.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Criticism from the Left Brought a Small Association’s Independence Day March into the Spotlight
Freedom of Speech in Danger
Finnish MEPs Saramo and Tynkkynen Engage in Social Media Clash Over Ukraine Support

Changing the Clocks Reduces Trust in the European Union

The European Union will once again switch to standard time tonight. This happens despite the fact that 84 percent of Europeans would prefer to completely abandon the foolish and costly practice of changing the clocks twice a year.

I call it costly because it has been proven to cause fatigue, impair memory, concentration, and attention. In addition, people’s reaction times slow down, increasing their likelihood of making mistakes. This raises the risk of accidents and mishaps—and these errors don't improve work quality either.

On the other hand, there is no demonstrated benefit to the clock changes themselves. To understand this, one must be able to distinguish between the act of shifting the clocks back and forth and the impact of time zones on people. Even though daylight saving time might suit people well, its benefits could be achieved simply by a permanent shift to a later time zone—meaning the abandonment of the shift back to standard time.

Despite all these well-known facts, the clocks are still being adjusted. And the reason is none other than the inability of the European Union and its member states to implement a decision that has already been made in 2019.

Therefore, I would like to ask Ursula van der Leyen and the other members of the Commission, as well as the Members of the European Parliament, how they think this inability fosters people’s trust in the Union or its effectiveness in promoting the well-being of its citizens.

And yes. I am well aware that my question is rhetorical, and that every single European knows the answer. And the real answer to my rhetoric certainly doesn’t help promote the good things for which the EU was created.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The EU Is Suffocating Under Double Bureaucracy
EU Decision-Makers Did the Bear a Disservice
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed

The EU Is Suffocating Under Double Bureaucracy

The European Union was originally established to ensure that Germany would no longer cause a catastrophe like those in 1914 and 1939. In this sense, the project has been highly successful.

The Union has also been successful in another way, as it has attracted – and continues to attract – new members for decades. For example, my own country, Finland, joined through a referendum at the beginning of 1995.

However, as the Union has grown, we have also witnessed a development that is all too familiar to my generation. I mean the uncontrolled growth of bureaucracy, much like what happened in the Soviet Union.

This issue was raised by former MEP and current member of the European Court of Auditors, Petri Sarvamaa (National Coalition Party). According to him, “our biggest concern is precisely that the authorities of the member states are no longer even able to properly manage this complex jungle of rules related to the EU budget and budgeting.”

Although the growth of bureaucracy in the EU has been ongoing for a long time, it has been discussed relatively little in public. Therefore, it was good that Sarvamaa brought it up, and one can only hope that his remarks gain visibility across the entire EU and are taken seriously by the Commission, so that it can start working to reduce bureaucracy.

It is quite clear that the EU will not be able to compete with the world's other economic powers if its operations are hindered by double layers of heavy bureaucracy – one at the Union level and another at the national level. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, the first should be limited to only necessary EU-wide regulations.

Otherwise, the EU will suffocate in its own bureaucracy, eventually withering into a second-rate player in global politics. And with that, it will begin a slow but steady decline, eventually culminating in the breakup of the entire Union.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Rising Trade Tensions Between the EU and China
General Pekka Toveri, the Chair of the European Parliament's Delegation for Ukraine
EU Decision-Makers Did the Bear a Disservice

The European Parliament should bring down the von der Leyen Commission

Christine Schneider, a member of the largest group in the European Parliament, the EPP, has reportedly claimed that the European Commission, particularly the Commissioner for the Environment, Frans Timmermans, had acted flagrantly beyond their powers in pushing for the adoption of their proposed restoration regulation. This was because the Department of Environment had sent a lobbying document listing means of influence for individuals and companies to persuade MEPs to vote in favor of the proposed regulation.

According to Schneider, the Commission had realized that their proposal was not receiving favorable support, so "they sought to influence Members of Parliament" through lobbyists. And, of course, this is not in line with the division of powers among EU institutions.

Among these institutions, the European Council, informally known as the EU summit, is formally the highest. It consists of the heads of state or government of the European Union (EU) member states and the President of the Commission. Its task is to provide the necessary impetus for the development of the EU and define general political guidelines. It is the highest political body of the EU and meets four times a year to outline key political directions and develop actions.

The Council of the European Union represents the governments of the member states and is the EU's main decision-making body. It legislates together with the Parliament, approves the budget in collaboration with the Parliament, is primarily responsible for the Union's foreign and security policy, and convenes in ten different configurations depending on the matter at hand.

Each meeting is attended by one minister from each member country, depending on the topic being discussed. However, in voting, ministers from different member states have different numbers of votes at their disposal, with larger states having more votes and smaller states having fewer votes.

The Commission, in turn, consists of around 30 commissioners who are selected after the EU elections and must be approved by the Parliament. One commissioner is chosen from each member state, and their task is to represent the interests of the entire Union.

For this purpose, the Commission has the power of initiative and implementation in the Union. It monitors the use of funds, ensures compliance with EU laws, and keeps the entire Union running with the help of commissioners and officials. Member states select their own commissioners, whose term lasts for five years, and decisions are made through majority voting.

Then there is the European Parliament, which theoretically represents EU citizens and is elected every 5 years through elections. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) work as part of European political parties and, together with the Council of Ministers, legislate.

However, the Parliament does not have the power of initiative, but it has the power to dismiss the Commission.

In this sense, the Timmermans´ actions highlighted by Schneider are indeed highly undemocratic and contrary to the power structures of the EU. Therefore, I believe that in this situation, the European Parliament should act decisively and not only reject the preliminary proposal but also bring down the entire Commission, which has proven to be rotten under Ursula von der Leyen's leadership.

This measure would restore the division of powers within the EU's agreed-upon framework and, at the same time, increase citizens' trust in the Union as a whole.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Daniel Freund demanded a ban to Viktor Orbán 
The European Commission appears unreliable as a decision-maker to the Finns
Fair policy will build a strong Union

The European Commission appears unreliable as a decision-maker to the Finns

In Finland, it is customary to trust a person's word, whether it be a man's or a woman's, once it has been given. Therefore, a person who goes back on their word is considered unreliable.

This cultural characteristic has contributed to making Finnish society quite functional in many ways, despite the fact that there are many unreliable individuals also in Finland.

That is why it was interesting, but unfortunate, to read about how Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen (Social Democrat) lightly approached the promise that the EU made when establishing the European Union Recovery Instrument. That is, the promise that the EU would no longer take on shared debt.

The article mentioned that Finland has been opposing the mentioned EU sovereignty fund. According to the article, it could be established either with debt financing or by granting the Union new types of fundraising possibilities - in plain language, some form of taxation authority.

So far, Finnish political parties have been quite united in this matter, likely due to the influence of negative public opinion. It remains to be seen what kind of operation the EU propaganda machinery will embark on to change it - as the article in question seems to ultimately address this issue.

In the article, Urpilainen also brought up another point. According to her, Finland's decision-making concerning EU matters should be altered to enable more proactive influence.

Regarding this matter, it is likely that all Finns can agree, to some extent, that Finland should indeed allocate resources to proactively influence EU decision-making. This is necessary to counteract decisions that could be harmful to both Finland and the entire EU, ideally at the earliest possible stage. However, it is important to acknowledge that each influencer or lobbyist operating in Brussels contributes to indirect costs associated with the EU, thereby increasing the financial burden on our national economy and that of other countries within the EU.

Therefore, the most crucial EU matter for the upcoming Finnish government this year is to exert influence on all EU member states to ensure the selection of competent individuals capable of making sensible decisions as commissioners. This is crucial to prevent future catastrophes similar to the von der Leyen Commission, which consists primarily of politicians who had largely failed in their national political careers.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin is quickly losing her national credibility
Fair policy will build a strong Union
Will an attitude lead Ukraine into EU?

Fair policy will build a strong Union

EU Commission is planning to decide on legally binding nature restoration targets. Those targets include restoration of at least 70% of drained peatlands and protecting 30% of land and 30% of sea in the EU. 

Those demands would have a major negative effect in Finland, where forest industry is extremely important by producing 18.1 % of exported goods and bringing a tax revenue of 2,7 billion euros. Such an economic benefit has been possible due to the extremely efficient management of - mostly privately owned - forests in the country. 

It should be noted that Finnish forests were not converted to other use - like in most of Europe - despite demands during the 19th century. In contrast, Finnish forests fortunately got economic value due to the developing industry which saved them from being destroyed. 

To ensure the raw material for saws and the pulp and paper mills, many actions were made during the 20th century to ensure forest growth. Tree production sustainability was reached in 1970´s, and thereafter forests have grown every year more than they have been used - although also the production of forest industry has increased. 

Furthermore, during recent decades many voluntary actions have been made by forest owners to save the biodiversity, which already has turned the previously highly negative development more positive. And therefore, Finnish forests are today remarkable carbon sinks, important source of raw materials and on their way of reaching ecological sustainability.

Finland rarely looks for its own benefit in the Union. Accordingly, the Finnish Government´s decision of nature restoration followed those tracks until the last week. And that was a huge difference to Sweden - exerting almost as sustainable forestry - which noted that the Union has no justification in forest issues. 

However, the Commission plans were noted by the Finnish forest industry, forest owners and professionals as well as ordinary countryside people, who put a pressure on politicians. And finally, they were heard in the national Parliament, where the big opposition parties - Conservatives and True Finns - challenged Government´s earlier decision to support the EU decree on restoration. 

And as a result, also Parliament members of Social democrats, Center party and Swedish people´s party joined the opposition. Only ultimate left of the government - Left alliance and Green party - kept their original position as supporters of the Commission´s arrogant plans.

It remains to be seen, how Finland´s changed view affects EU policy. It would, however, be a benefit for the whole EU to change it to become fairer. For Finland the current plans would be roughly equal if Germany was demanded to reduce its car industry by 30% or Netherlands was forced to return 30% of its dried sea coasts back to a seabed. 

Actually, the leader of EU Commission´s current environmental policy - Frans Timmermans - should understand that only fair policy towards all member states will build a strong Union capable to respond to challenges posed by other economic great powers USA and China. And therefore, even small members should be respected instead of making efforts to destroy their preconditions of living.  

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Share of EU recovery funds will turn attitudes more negative
A new justification is needed for environmental activists
Finnish parties agreed on actions against the climatic change

Will an attitude lead Ukraine into EU?

The European Commission has taken a positive attitude towards granting Ukraine an official status as an EU candidate, according to Politico. The solution roots itself in Ukrainian requests for an official recognition as an EU candidate country as that would provide a morale boost to their soldiers and other citizens. 

An anonymous EU senior official said that "the Commission does not forget that Ukraine is the only country in Europe where people died, where people were shot at because they were on the streets carrying EU flags... Now, we cannot tell them, ´sorry guys, you were waving the wrong flags.´"

As having a great sympathy towards Ukrainians in their desperate defense against Russian invasion, I definitely would like to provide them a membership in the Union. Despite that, I urge that during the becoming negotiations EU will not loosen its demands and economic conditions to be fulfilled by a member country. That includes also getting rid of the wide and deep corruption known to have flourished forever in the country.

Good hope can be seen in the attitudes of Ukrainians. That was expressed by the deputy head of Ukrainian President office, who said that "when you ask Ukrainian soldiers fighting somewhere in the Donbas or in the south of Ukraine against Russian aggression, ´Do you want to be a part of the European Union family?´ They say, ´Yes, definitely. Because that´s what I’m fighting for. I´m fighting not only for Ukraine, I´m fighting for European values. I´m fighting against aggression in Europe.´"

I hope this attitude will make impossible a viable option, and help Ukrainians to turn their country to an acceptable and successful member of the European Union in near future. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A new route for the Ukrainian crops
Afghanistan now and in the future
Tractor course for Ukrainians