Latvian Political Monitor

Why did I take action against the 'reclaimers' of the mandatory procurement component? Because I did not find the behavior of these people fair towards the residents of Latvia. I find it particularly cruel that the campaign organizers, after people signed contracts, asked them: 'What will you do with this money?' Unprecedented cynicism. But let's take things in order. ⬇️ In 2016, when I started working at the Ministry of Economics, the mandatory procurement component (OIK) was a big problem because it increased electricity prices. Companies were made uncompetitive, and residents had disproportionately large payments. All this happened due to the 2009 amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers regulations, which, under the apparent influence of the gas lobby, were approved by the Godmanis government at its last meeting. Then came the 2017 OIK scandal, which opened the opportunity to limit the recipients of this payment. In the end, by the end of my work at the Ministry of Economics, I signed decisions to cancel OIK for more than EUR 300 million to its recipients, energy producers, and we developed a solution to reduce support for 'Latvenergo' by EUR 700 million. Meanwhile, there was also coordination with the European Commission, during which the Ministry of Economics incorporated several solutions that allowed further reduction of OIK. The European Commission approved this support provided by Latvia, without raising objections either to the support paid up to that point or to what will be paid in the future. A clear decision from the Commission. ✅ I found it shocking that almost 10 years later, in 2025, a group of lawyers appeared who openly misled the residents of Latvia by claiming that the European Commission had not approved this support and that it was not legal. Seeing that residents were being misled, I turned to the Consumer Rights Protection Center, the Latvian Council of Sworn Advocates, and the Prosecutor General's Office regarding the lawyers' actions. I saw not only a violation of the rights of those residents who had concluded contracts, but also violations of the Advocates' Law regarding how lawyers can conduct their practice, and violations of ethical norms. Lawyers, in my opinion, must not provide misleading information to their clients. 😤 The Consumer Rights Protection Center found that the association that organized the OIK recovery 'https://t.co/Ti3Gug9f3J' had implemented misleading commercial practice, namely, misled Latvian residents about the European Commission's decision. The inspections concluded that the association deliberately presented only one side of the European Commission's decision on its website – criticism of the Latvian state – but completely concealed the main and decisive part of the decision, namely, that the support introduced by Latvia was recognized as compatible with the EU internal market. By presenting information selectively, the association created a false impression among consumers about the legal situation and the real possibilities of OIK recovery, which in the PTAC's assessment is classified as misleading commercial practice. So the association misled the people with whom it concluded contracts. The Ethics Commission of the Latvian Council of Sworn Advocates reviewed my initial submission, in which I pointed out possible violations of the Code of Ethics for lawyers. It recommended that lawyers who, with their name and reputation, became involved in this campaign, behave more in line with the Code of Ethics. Among them is also the chairman of the Latvian Council of Sworn Advocates. After the PTAC opinion, which clearly stated that lawyers were involved in deception, I again turned to the Council of Sworn Advocates. I have not yet received a response to this submission. The Prosecutor General's Office continues to review the submission. The prosecution has the widest opportunities to defend the interests of residents, https://t.co/QQXAfth0Bg, by stopping illegal activities. I consider it my duty to also use my experience and knowledge in the future to defend the interests of Latvian residents against dishonest and unethical behavior. Such a duty, in my opinion, belongs to everyone who sees injustice and has the necessary knowledge to prevent it. With experience, one can achieve results and increase public safety. 💪

The Border Guard College performs a sacred work for our country – prepares guards for our country's borders. People who do not allow foreign people and powers to come into our country. It was an honor to be with the graduates of the Border Guard College - the new border guards. https://t.co/rUPXCmOH7x

Wow. This incompetence is starting to become seriously dangerous. No, we are not protecting any Europe! No, nobody owes us anything. Europe will survive without an independent Latvia, just as it survived all the years of the Cold War. Spain, Germany, etc. help us for moral and solidarity reasons — and thank them for that, not for pragmatic reasons. It turns out we have a prime minister who not only doesn't know the ABCs of international politics, but doesn't even recognize a map. He could at least have kept quiet.

“That was a macroeconomic mistake” – Ašeradens points to the wage problem in the public sector

🇱🇻 Latvia is currently paying for security from which all of Europe benefits. However, the bill remains largely with us. From 2027, Latvia will spend at least 5% of GDP on defense. We are strengthening the EU and NATO external border with the aggressor state. This border is not only Latvia's border—it is Europe's security border. But the current system is unfair. ➖️ Latvia borrows money to build fortifications and strengthen the eastern border. ➖️ Due to border-area risk, we pay higher interest on this debt. ➖️ Due to geopolitical risk, Latvia also loses investments and tourists. ➖️ At the same time, we buy billions worth of armaments and military equipment mainly from 🇩🇪 Germany, 🇫🇷 France, 🇸🇪 Sweden, 🇳🇱 the Netherlands, 🇪🇸 Spain and other countries. So Latvia takes on the debt and risk, while our defense spending simultaneously warms Western European economies. And all this is done to protect not only Riga or Daugavpils. Deterrence at Latvia's border also makes Berlin, Munich, Paris and Amsterdam safer. Therefore, the 7 billion euros Latvia is asking for is not “extra money for Latvia.” It is part of the cost of protecting Europe's common border. In seven years, that would be only about 0.4% of the nearly 2 trillion euro EU budget. For 449 million Europeans—about 2.23 euros per person per year. One coffee. For Latvia's inhabitants—about 540 euros per year. This difference very clearly shows the problem. Latvia will defend its border in any case. The question is—will all of Europe pay for Europe's common security, or will we leave a disproportionately large share of the bill to countries that happen geographically to be next to the aggressor's border? We are not asking for solidarity just for the sake of solidarity. We are offering the most effective European security investment—investing money where the real threat is. 🇪🇺 Europe's eastern border is common. The bill for its defense must also be common. https://t.co/oyE1yMcnR2

@RenarsKadzulis To call someone a criminal or allege corruption, you need ironclad evidence (it must be gathered and the case submitted to court). That is what the prosecutor's office does. You yourself recently shouted that you are being falsely accused, didn't you?

This mechanical increase of government and Saeima deputies' salaries must be frozen; there can be no talk of a rise when the budget lacks funds. There is no room for discussion there https://t.co/RgJoyIp11T

@EdvardsSmiltens Edvard, in life people have various circumstances why they cannot access their money in a bank account. It is unfair to nationalize it. Imagine Latvians in 1939 who had an account in Switzerland but remained on the other side of the 'Iron Curtain'. Then someone simply took their money?

The issue of lending and the development of Latvia's capital market is becoming topical again. Financial markets are beginning to expect a stricter ECB policy. Energy prices, geopolitical risks, larger state fiscal spending and more persistent inflation are changing interest rate expectations. Reuters writes that markets now price in the ECB deposit rate approaching 3% by the end of 2027. For Latvia, there are two questions. First, Euribor and the cost of credit for households and businesses. Second, why is the financing of our economy still so dependent on bank lending? If interest rates rise again, economies with deeper equity, bond, pension and venture capital markets are much less dependent on bank credit. Therefore, it is in Latvia's interests not only to develop its own capital market, but also to create a truly unified European capital and financial market, where Latvian companies would have access to much broader European capital. And in the longer term, Europe also needs greater joint fiscal capacity, the ability to finance European-scale investments in defense, energy and infrastructure. For a small and open economy like Latvia, a deeper European capital market and greater joint investment capacity is not a threat to sovereignty. It is an opportunity to gain access to capital and scale of investment that Latvia alone could never create.

Laid flowers at the Freedom monument to celebrate Latvia’s restoration of independence and diplomatic relations, and returned to the Saeima (Parliament) hall, where the historical decision was made.

@janisdombrava @Krisjanis_K what nationality? hope we haven't got to North Korean doctors yet

@VisockisJuris @janisdombrava let him crawl back through that pipe

@janissilins2018 @janisdombrava Of course! Elections take place in all prisons! https://t.co/DmuP2Tsyax