In Finland, too, the EU Recovery Fund, which is being considered by Parliament, is officially a temporary and one-off exemption from the Union's large joint debt solely to curb the effects of interest rates throughout the Union.
This is what the European Council of EU leaders has agreed, and this is how the Finnish government has marketed the package to Parliament.
However, some EU leaders have already rushed ahead, interpreting the temporary nature of the stimulus fund as a temporary formality in itself, even in their public speeches.
For example, some representatives of the Italian, Spanish, French and even German governments have publicly assessed - and generally welcomed - the stimulus fund as a permanent basis for the EU's transformation into a so-called fiscal or debt union.
In much the same way, the stimulus fund and the future prospects it has generated have been assessed - and largely praised - by a large number of non-EU financial market and economic observers.
So far, however, the temporary becoming permanent has been veiled, conceived, and recommended mainly in informal speeches and inches.
Instead, the formal proposals, interpretations and opinions of the EU institutions have so far very carefully emphasized the temporary and one-off nature of the Recovery Fund.
The reason is clear: emphasizing the compulsion dictated by temporaryness and the interest rate crisis is the only politically possible way to obtain approval for large-scale - and forbidden by the EU treaties - joint debt in net contributors such as Finland.
Therefore, the prospect of a temporary change in the structure and nature of the EU from a temporary debt fund has so far been a taboo in the official publications of the EU's own institutions, which has not agreed to be made public.
Now the eurozone central bank, the ECB, has broken that taboo.
One degree more formal development outlook
The ECB has published the latest issue of its Economic Bulletin, 6/2020, on its website this week.
As usual, the publication contains a large number of economic statistics and interpretations, as well as a number of current special articles.
One of the articles in this review focuses on the EU corona recovery package, and in particular the package's “fiscal implications” - and opportunities.
The article begins by stating that the EU's stimulus package is "an important milestone in European economic policy integration".
And concludes with the conclusion that EU corona measures (such as the Recovery Fund in particular) have “far-reaching implications for the development and practice of European governance”.
The article interprets the stimulus fund as reflecting the political will of member states to take large-scale joint economic policy action if necessary - and to establish a common “fiscal tool”.
The culmination is a reflective proposal:
"This innovation - albeit a one-off one - can serve as an example and stimulus to economic and monetary union, which still lacks a permanent supranational economic policy capacity to offset the effects of economic crises."
The article concludes with the recommendation that in the process of developing the structure of the EU, the model identified by the Recovery Fund should be taken as a lesson and a guideline.
Formally, the interpretations and assessments in the article are the views of their authors, the experts employed by the ECB, and not the official opinions of the central bank.
But it is still a prestigious and official publication of the ECB, each sentence of which has passed an accurate sieve.
Economic and political project
Changing the Recovery Fund from temporary to permanent as an instrument for financing EU borrowing and transfers would be a significant change in the nature of the ongoing and formally temporary project.
There may be good or regret about the possible tacit intention to implement change, just as change can in itself be considered an economic or political good or bad idea.
Which position each ends up can vary, no matter how many different criteria.
One factor influencing the position of the economic weighting may be the question of how much the recovery fund and the subsequent follow-on arrangements will cost and produce - and how the contributions and revenues will be distributed among the participating countries.
This distribution of costs and benefits is likely to be of interest mainly to participating Member States and their taxpayers, which may be profitable for net beneficiaries and slightly hesitant for payers.
On the other hand, payments and receivables are less likely to be of interest to, for example, the EU institutions, for which the whole is more important - and especially not to financial market participants, for whom it is important to assess their own earnings and not those of individual EU countries.
Political weighing is likely to be influenced by each one's position on the ideal form and role of the EU - and the question of which is better, the current federation or some sort of federation.
However, weighing up such economic and political issues and forming each position itself would be incomparably easier than an uncertain one if there were openly reliable and sincere information about a project that is currently progressing - and whatever changes are planned.
While the ECB is already outlining the future prospects for the stimulus fund from a temporary crisis instrument to a permanent fiscal force for the EU, perhaps it would be a refreshing variation in Finland to talk about such a far-reaching project without going around.