SPr1qg

The National Coordination of EU Policy in Latvia 93
The shift from pre-accession to full membership was also important, as the
demands faced were very different. For this reason, it could not be said that
the period of pre-accession prepared the way. One important difference was
that the EU’s influence became less direct as 1 May 2004 approached, since
the close supervision and monitoring that had been a feature of the preaccession
period fell away.
Although the impetus was external, domestic factors exerted an im -
portant influence in shaping Latvia’s coordination system. As all political
parties supported to a greater or lesser degree the goal of EU membership
after Latvia gained its independence, accession has not been politically
contentious. The same cannot be said of popular opinion, where support for
EU membership was lowest among the candidate countries and indifference
has remained high since accession. 18 Thus, frequent changes of government
have not led to shifts in Latvia’s European policy. Another important factor
was the absence of administrative resistance to the demands of pre- accession
or full EU membership. Gearing up the administration so that it could
meet EU requirements was part of a general reform and overhaul of the state,
as the remnants of the Communist system were eliminated. The system for
the coordination of EU policy reproduced the power relations and norms
of the new polity, with its tendency towards decentralization of functions
and responsibilities. In addition, although in the pre-accession phase Latvia
had borrowed from both Estonia and Finland — countries of similar size
with PM-led systems and small coordination centres — the choice of an
MFA-centred coordination model for post-accession was made for domestic
political reasons. The EIB was abolished, its functions transferred else -
where — legal aspects to the Ministry of Justice, EC twinning assistance to
the Ministry of Finance — and very limited competences remained at the
centre of government (a single special advisor to the PM on EU Affairs). The
State Chancellery’s role was limited to supplying information on the EU, a
responsibility of the EUIA, and ensuring that Latvia’s positions on the EU
follow the same inter-departmental coordination procedures as other policy
initiatives, if on a faster track.
Furthermore, the influence of key individuals on the national coordination
system has been very important. They include, Einārs Repše, New
18
Eurobarometer 69 — Opinion Poll in the EU. Report on Latvia, European Commission, 2008.