Permitting nuclear weapon import and transit

Key points of the debate

Parliament held a heated and divided debate on amending the Nuclear Energy Act and the Criminal Code so that the import, transport and possession of nuclear weapons are permitted as part of Nato's collective defence. The government parties considered that lifting the legislative restrictions strengthens Nato's deterrence and maximises Finland's security in a changed security environment. Most opposition parties opposed the legislative amendment, considered statutory protection for a nuclear-weapon-free status essential, and criticised the hasty and weak parliamentary preparation of the proposal.

• –Should restrictions on nuclear weapons be maintained in legislation or in political guidelines?
• –Does permitting the transit and possession of nuclear weapons increase Finland's security?
• –Does Nato membership require lifting national nuclear weapon restrictions?
• –Was the parliamentary preparation of the proposal sufficient?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The National Coalition Party considered that outdated legal restrictions must be dismantled so that Nato's collective preventive deterrence and Finland's defence can be fully utilised.

  ”Voimassa oleva lainsäädäntömme ei vastaa niihin tarpeisiin, joita Suomella Naton jäsenenä on.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  The Finns Party supported the legislative amendment as a necessary measure to guarantee Finland's full security and the credibility of deterrence against the threat of an aggressive neighbour.

  ”Kannatan tätä lämpimästi, eli vauhdilla vaan eteenpäin.”

• Swedish People's PartyIn favour

  The Swedish People's Party supported the proposal to respond to changes in the security environment, but expressed hope for more parliamentary preparation on similar matters in future.

  ”När det kommer till det här själva förslaget så understöder jag det personligen, eftersom jag anser att det är nödvändigt med tanke på de förändringar som man sett i säkerhetsmiljön.”

• Christian DemocratsIn favour

  The Christian Democrats considered the proposal necessary and defended the manner of its preparation as appropriate.

  ”Kiitos ministerille tästä hyvästä, tarpeellisesta esityksestä.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The Social Democrats opposed the proposal, considering that Finland is already fully covered by Nato's nuclear deterrence and that the risks of removing the legal restrictions had not been adequately assessed.

  ”Kannatan edustaja Karin hylkyehdotusta. Ydinaseiden tuonti Suomeen ei vahvista turvallisuuttamme.”

• Centre PartyIn favour with reservations

  The Centre Party considered removing the legal restrictions justified in terms of military deterrence, but emphasised peace-time nuclear-weapon-free status and voiced strong criticism of the preparatory process.

  ”Keskustan kanta onkin, että kun katsotaan kokonaisuutta, niin on perusteltua poistaa rajoitteet ydinenergialaista ja rikoslaista sen pahimman päivän varalta.”

• GreensAgainst

  The Greens opposed the proposal, stating that Nato does not require restrictions to be lifted and that Finland should continue its nuclear-weapon-free stance, promoting nuclear disarmament.

  ”Tämä hallituksen esitys käytännössä avaisi oven ydinaseiden kauttakululle Suomessa, enkä voi sitä kannattaa.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  The Left Alliance called for the rejection of the proposal, as lifting the ban on nuclear weapons breaches Finland's longstanding nuclear-weapon-free stance and increases security threats.

  ”Vasemmistoliitto oli mukana valiokunnan mietintöön jätetyssä vastalauseessa, joka esittää lakiesityksen hylkäämistä.”

This digest was generated by AI from 76 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record. The longest speeches were shortened in the digest's source material.