The leaked information that the new head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, intends to further strengthen and centralize the EU, that working groups and discussion groups are being formed for the purpose – this news aroused concern in Riga in many, and overt irritation and discontent in the right-wing nationals.Moreover, in January the Latvian Parliament held foreign policy debates.

And the debates also demonstrated the ambiguous, suspicious attitude of the ruling elite to the prospect of strengthening the role and functions of Brussels, and to everything that will follow from this. What is the matter here and why the political philosophy and strategy Latvia willingly joined 15 years ago, does not evoke previous enthusiasm?The matter, of course, is not Brexit, which is not an example for us, and leaving the EU is not being seriously contemplated in Latvia (although the European wits have already come up with the name for the eventual process -Lat-Me-Out). Let us leave Brexit alone. History has repeatedly shown that a breakup only leads to the strengthening of the social and political base of an entity, and that the new union is strong if the remaining participants have common goals and interests. Therefore, the negative (as well as the positive!) consequences from the departure of the British should not be exaggerated – we just need to learn how to live with it and look towards the future.What then prevents Latvia from being at the forefront of Euro-optimism and from applauding the initiatives of Ursula von der Leyen louder than others? The reasons are many, however, there are three main ones, namely: firstly, in Latvia, as it turns out, America is loved very much. It is loved in every way: from all heart and soul, for a friendly pat, and for protection from the “unpredictable neighbour”, and even for open paternalism – but above all because the United States do not immerse too much into those of our affairs that for the time being do not concern them; they perceive our country as it is, with all our national neuroses and tantrums. And what does America have to do with this? That is simple: the European Union was created once as a competitor to the USA (in the positive sense of the word), and in Latvia this is being remembered…The second reason is that in a certain sense, Latvia is a little afraid of Europe, its scale, strength, experience, its diverse culture, its omnipotent and persistent bureaucracy. Solidarity is being feared – both the one that Europe displays when it is needed, “as a whole,” and the one that it requires from its “parts”. And in the “bouquet” of European values, we prefer to separate those flowers that we like from those, the fragrance of which is unpleasant to us …Finally, thirdly: in Latvia we are very dissatisfied, when we are not allowed or are being prevented from deciding things and issues in our country, especially those related to power and money. These three reasons have already led the country to a junction, where two directions, two paths clearly diverge – towards “European Latvia” and towards “Latvian Latvia”, but we are embarrassed to say it out loud. The uncertain future of the EU so far allows us to gradually move towards the right path, pretending that we are firmly positioned on the left one…The weak point, the Latvian “Achilles’s heel”, is not even represented by the unresolved national problems, but the situation in the national economy and the growth of the welfare of the residents. In recent years, the development of Latvia has been funded by the EU money – from 20% to 30% of its budget was covered from European funds, while there is already an understanding that the point of maximum support has been passed, and that one of the Brexit results will be its accelerated reduction.No one in Brussels has so far told us by how much European funding will decrease, but they make it clear that the losses will be huge. At present, there are practically no internal sources of growth in Latvia. Moreover, the development of the economy and the growth of prosperity have never been clearly identified in our country as strategic priorities. Even if something was declared in this respect, nothing was done. In the best case, hope was expressed for the “invisible hand of the market,” which, given a favourable business climate and good laws, would put everything into place. However, it is unlikely that this hand will place anything anywhere, if it is regularly beaten with a hammer, the way it is being done in Latvia.Two leading industries, transport and banks, are now in a state of unhealthy shock. Transit through ports and railways is sharply reducing; annual losses as a percentage are expressed in double digits. The banking