V. Sinkevičius: By restricting the powers of G. Nausėda, the Conservatives would violate the Constitution

Both interlocutors discussed the response of President G. Nausėda to I. Šimonyte on the current affairs program “15/15”.

In response to the Prime Minister’s letter, the President informed him that he would continue his long-standing practice of representing the country in the European Council by the President. G. Nausėda bases this on the constitutional powers of the president and on the tradition of many years.

– Mr. Sinkevičius, the Constitution says that the President pursues foreign policy together with the Government. G. Nausėda, by writing a letter to Prime Minister I. Šimonyte, in which he expresses a negative position regarding representation in the European Council, does he not violate the basic law of the country?

– It seems to me that it does not offend, and the letter itself is based on the Constitution. And not only with the article that you are mentioning, but also with another that says that the president represents the state of Lithuania. The first paragraph of Article 84 establishes that the Head of State decides on the main foreign policy issues and exercises foreign policy together with the Government.

The President exercises the powers conferred by the Constitution and defends those assigned to him. Perhaps the opposite question should be asked: is the position taken by the party (the Conservatives) that the country’s president should not attend European Council meetings compatible with the Constitution? Formulating a problem and threatening to solve it legally, does it not violate the Constitution?

– Mr Sinkevich, Conservatives say that the affairs of the European Union are more a matter of domestic policy than foreign affairs and should be handed over to the Government. How do you rate this?

– Neither the Constitutional Court nor any of the lawyers have yet answered the question of what are the main foreign policy issues that the President must decide.

But if we look at the Constitutional Law on the Membership of Lithuania in the European Union, it is constructed in such a way that the Seimas and the Government are involved in the processes after receiving a proposal from the EU to adopt a legal act, but this does not mean anything and it’s just an opinion.

According to the Constitution, foreign policy is exercised only by the President, so I will repeat that the Government or the Seimas committees do not exercise foreign policy, their opinions are requested only out of courtesy.

The Treaty on European Union and the terms of reference of the European Council stipulate that the state decides independently who represents it, the president or the prime minister. In Europe, only four of the 27 countries are represented by presidents, namely France, Cyprus, Romania and Lithuania.

Why are they represented by presidents? Because there, presidents can influence government decisions. Our Constitution is constructed a little differently.

Photo by Vidmantas Balkūnas / 15min / Vytautas Sinkevičius

– G.Nausėda influential in the Government?

– Completely intact, it cannot have any effect on the Government. But our Constitution is constructed differently and we cannot ignore some very important phrases: that the president represents the Lithuanian state and decides on the main foreign policy issues.

If there is a threat of legal action being taken, a government approval or law passed, and then you go to the Constitutional Court, I think that will not be enough. If an attempt is made to restrict the powers of the President of the Republic through laws, governmental resolutions and the like, in my opinion it would be contrary to the Constitution.

– Mr. Januška, G. Nausėda declares in a letter to I. Šimonyte that he adheres to the powers of the head of the country and to the long-term tradition provided for in the Constitution, but this tradition has been formed by the agreement of politicians. Do you remember how this agreement was formed?

– The Constitution contains three essential concepts: representation, decision and execution. In the President’s letter, what he does not say is more important than what he says, and in it he only speaks of representation, which is understood in a completely different way in international relations. It is the representation of a country during state visits, but not in meetings of the European Union.

The second essential concept of the Constitution is a decision. Perhaps it is a solution, but then it must be said that the president has not resolved many issues that are of the European Union. I am referring to the unsolved problem of the Astrava power station, the problem of the Nord Stream gas pipeline. These are the most important foreign policy issues. I find this letter from the President deplorable. Because it was not based on constitutional articles but on political practices that do not really exist.

G.Nausėda is based on the principle and practice of representation. The principle of political representation means nothing, and the principle of political practice was with only one president: Dalia Grybauskaitė. There was also the practice of Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius and President D. Grybauskaitė participating alternately in the European Council.

Photo by Sigismund Gedvila / 15min / Albinas Januška

– If G.Nausėda and I.Šimonytė had shared their responsibilities on issues important to Lithuania, could we have made more favorable decisions than we have now?

– Of course, practice could have been like this. There are many important foreign policy issues, such as Astrava, Crimea, etc., but there are no solutions. In the letter, the president mentions the word defend, defend, defend interests, as if he were going to war. However, in the last Council, the president did not defend all the points, although he was given a mandate to do so.

By leading and not sharing responsibilities with the Government, G. Nausėda does not comply with the mandate, and deliberately does not mention it in the letter, considering that this letter can be the basis for presenting a complaint to the Conservatives before the Constitutional Court, where the decision it could not be in their favor.

– Mr Sinkevičius, this is a question of agreement, which obviously does not exist. It is possible that D. Grybauskaitė conducted because the prime ministers who worked with her were not sufficiently qualified for this representation. Now the conservatives want the prime minister to be represented. It doesn’t seem like some kind of a back-and-forth launch, on the best side. How to solve it?

– There must be a political agreement. It amazes me that the president is corresponding with the prime minister on this matter, rather than arguing and not irritating the public during a normal meeting.

A letter is not a reason to appeal to the Constitutional Court, in order to request it there must be a specific provision of the law that may be contradicted. What specific provision will they dispute? There are no such provisions. This means that if agreement cannot be reached at the political level, the Constitution must be amended to include a provision allowing the Prime Minister to participate in EVS.

You can find the complete recording of the current program “15/15” in the video gallery.