Maris Zander
Photo: Timur Subhankulov
Māris Zanders, “Latvijas Avīze”, JSC “Latvijas Mediji”
–
Drunk Rungain’s recommendations on what to do with money right now. Save? Spend? Invest?
–
VIDEO. “And that’s how they control us…”: a Latvian is convinced that he has found an “antenna” and a “chip” in his passport that helps track his every step
–
Could the Russians soon run out of ammunition? Rajev explains
Some Latvian politicians have, to put it mildly, a peculiar attitude towards the European Union (EU). When it is convenient for these politicians, it is claimed that the frequent absence is the fault of Brussels with its nonsensical demands and flawed policies.
Otherwise, these politicians seem to forget about the omnipotence attributed to Brussels and promise the voters decisions that cannot be implemented by the parliament and government of a single member state. I think that such conscious or unconscious confusion is not as innocent as it may seem to the voters – the voter really does not need to know the differences between, for example, the powers of the European Central Bank and the European Commission.
As a result, politicians who, say, promise to provide lower credit interest rates, abundant and cheap energy resources, and the like, can gain voter support. Since independence, we have learned that in reality, the promise of such impossible benefits is not at all ridiculous.
At the same time, it is not the case that the parliaments and governments of the member states cannot do much for the citizens. No, as long as you want and ask, you can. For example, nothing prevents us from making public administration less bureaucratic, because nowhere in the EU “papers” is a mandatory and detailed model defined.
It should be noted that the member states are also “exercising” in different ways in this direction – at one time, Greece, for example, created such a complicated and ineffective system that it could be envied. s. fans of the socialist planning system; as governments changed, there were half-successful attempts to correct the situation.
There is enough freedom in tax legislation – unless some politician offers to turn the country into an essentially offshore country, because the EU has been looking askance at such practice for at least the last five or seven years. Combating corruption is an area that is actually directly the responsibility of each member state. As long as the macroeconomic criteria go somewhat together, the member state can improve (or worsen…) the model of social support programs, which governments in Spain, France, Poland, etc. have done (and plan to do) in recent decades with varying success.
It can be seen that a popular theme during the pre-election period is promises to protect the market and/or support the local producer. Here, as they say, the truth is in the middle – there is both EU common regulation and room for maneuver. Even when Great Britain was still a member of the EU, the British government did not hesitate to intervene in the desire of foreign investors to buy assets that the government thought were too strategically important.
France has tried the same, albeit drawing ironic remarks for including food group Danone on the list of “untouchables”. In recent years, the parties in power in Poland implement the so-called s. business polonization (media, energy, partly financial services) – nothing violating EU regulations was found here, there was more skepticism about the meaning of such decisions. In short, even in the sensitive sphere of protectionism, there are opportunities for maneuver, only decisions need to be carefully thought through.
The most greedy situation arises when faced with promises to increase funding for something, also increasing the budget deficit and the amount of public debt. T. s. fiscal conservatives rebuke that there are such Maastricht criteria at all, while those who promise to remember that the criteria, at least in the budget deficit section, have already been violated several times and that it is wrong to complain about them during a crisis.
It cannot be denied that the supporters of a more relaxed attitude are somewhat right, and Latvia does not need to be holier than the Pope in the area of macroeconomic criteria. However, there are two factors that lead us not to get carried away (promisors – politicians, listeners – voters).
What the USA, Japan or France can afford in the financial markets is not the same as what we can afford – there is a good chance that the amount X we want will be loaned more expensively. The second problem is related to significantly greater uncertainty about the future.
Until relatively recently, it was possible to agree with the defenders of the looser attitude, who pointed out that monetary resources in the world are very cheap, so there is no need to stress at what price we will refinance the borrowed, but at the moment we can say what will happen to the financial markets and rates, let’s say, in the next two or three years , is objectively difficult.
In any case, when listening to pre-election promises, it is worth following what you read and hear about what is happening in other EU member states on the given topic.
Themes
–
