[ad_1]
Sitting on a horse of abstract welfare difficult to define, the job for which, according to the Lithuanian Constitution and the institution of the president, he was appointed, did not last long enough (after long observation and questioning, I dare say that the knowledge and skills).
It is even hard to believe that in a world where the foundations of state relations are crumbling, decades of arms and trade deals (including nuclear) have been radically abandoned or reconsidered, new and widely debated democracies are emerging in a world of power change In the era of social media and (in) trust in the media, the President of the European Union (not the leader of the African tribe)[1]) boldly summarizes all of the state’s foreign policy in the statement that we “know” the external threats facing Lithuania and “constantly strengthen the security of our state.”
Could G.Nausėda say how he sees the future of Lithuania in the new geopolitical space? Nothing but commonalities and banalities, one of which he bravely quoted when he recalled what he said to Trump during his meeting on relations between Lithuania, the EU and NATO.[„Europos Sąjunga – geresniam gyvenimui, NATO – tiesiog gyvenimui“].
I agree with the President that “three decades ago, the most important objective of all of us was to return to where we were robbed by force: to the Western world in the political, cultural and economic sense of the word.”
However, I dare ask, what do these words mean for G. Nausėda, the political and cultural space of the Western world? What images resonate in your mind when you talk about the cultural aspirations of the Western world? The President’s very rare and real statements about Lithuania’s European policy, for example, are completely overwhelmed by regrets over the fact that payments to farmers are still too low and the motto “no one should touch Cohesion Funds” .
However, I dare ask, what do these words mean for G. Nausėda, the political and cultural space of the Western world?
A few days ago, the presidency announced that in the run-up to tomorrow’s European leaders’ negotiations (Friday June 19) on the new multi-annual financial perspective (MFF), the president had spoken to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. It is clear in the text that the President thanked the President for everything (intellectuals can find the text on the Presidency page, they will be delighted), he was pleased that the EC’s priorities and proposals are in line with his vision of the state welfare (G.Nausėda), but eventually The idea that “the multiannual financial framework should be more ambitious, it is important to ensure greater funding for Cohesion Policy and agriculture, to achieve direct convergence of payments to farmers “
Who has or should satisfy G. Nausėda’s ambitions for well-being remains a mystery. It is also a mystery how much it is still possible to support the agricultural sector at a loss at the expense of the public sector (its added value is lower than the support received and taxes are often ridiculous), especially as existing agricultural support schemes in Lithuania are increasing the exclusion. ) and Lithuanian lands. And it is widely spoken in Europe, and even in the United States.
In Europe, this new financial perspective for 2021-2027 and its relationship with the European Temporary Recovery Fund are now being discussed very fiercely. This issue is especially relevant for Lithuania, which is one of the largest recipients of aid from the European Union, especially since donor countries no longer want to blindly share their resources.
Member States have different views on virtually every key issue: Lunch is showing that it has suffered exceptional damage as a result of the pandemic, demanding most of it, savers refusing to pay more and want very clear eligibility criteria. All the most responsible parties agree that it is necessary to agree before the money rain, and who will cover it and how.
Who has or should satisfy G. Nausėda’s ambitions for well-being remains a mystery.
I note that if you decide that 760 billion. The euro from the Recovery Fund will be reimbursed from the financial perspective of 2028-2035, so Lithuania can be a payer to the beneficiary. And I emphasize, although the President does not seem to realize: it is not so much about money as it is about trust and solidarity. So which side of solidarity will Lithuania and its leader (?) Be on, especially from tomorrow will have to talk about it again in the Council, and there will be such notorious moralizations that we have heard today that they simply will not be of interest to anyone . And this means that Lithuania will remain alone.
Another very important question (and again the problem of western democracy): does Lithuania accept that Member States that do not comply with Article 2 of the Europe Agreement on the rule of law cannot receive financial support? Apparently bowing to the President of the European Commission, G. Nausėda, apparently, sacredly believes that at the same time he can assure the Polish leader that Lithuania will be on the Polish side in the dispute with Poland against the EU regarding violations of the rule of law. .
And once again, a question that a normal, responsible national president, rather than rhetoric fueling rhetoric, had to try to answer. This is not just a question for me, it is a question of Lithuania’s presence in the European Union, even if the voters of G. Nausėda, for whom she is beautiful because she is tall, cannot understand her.
The truth confirmed by Darkart is that it is not the height that matters, but the blow.
The fact that, admiring how well Lithuania has coped with the challenges of the pandemic, the President did not recall a third of the increase in domestic violence, seems that he is not even able to understand how poor Europe is and that Lithuania is not yet fully adhered to the Istanbul Convention. And this is what distances her from those western values that only G. Nausėda declares, but which are strange to her in her heart.
Hearing the message was boring. It is boring, because it was just a manifesto of vain complacency and cheap moralization, in which there was neither a confused Lithuania nor an attempt to delineate its future perspective.
Who did the Lithuanian Zarastustra talk to? For those who picked it up for its 1.92 cm (the same president announces it on Wikipedia). By the way, you can also discover on Wikipedia that Macrono is 1.77 cm tall. It is true that the French leader speaks of ideas that will later be fought across Europe and sometimes even the world. The truth confirmed by Darkart is that it is not the height that matters, but the blow.
Lithuania does not have a president now.
P.S.
As the lines of the “western” values front in Lithuania expand into the past, we will wait until the President again burns candles for unborn lives in Cathedral Square. True, how is your blood donation campaign going there?
Dr. Aušra Maldeikienė is an economist, member of the European Parliament, former member of Seimas.
[1] To those of you who can see racism here, I would like to remind you that the limits of action of the head of state and the leader of a tribe and the competencies required for this are fundamentally different. Saying that a chef is a chef does not offend the chef, but understands that one can expect a good soup from him, but not an analysis of the tension in the geopolitical space. Just so much.VIDEO: G.Nausėda’s first annual report: what is most important?
[ad_2]
