The author of the entry accused Bogucki of manipulating the message about Nawrocki's decisions and questioned the claim that each of them stemmed solely from concern for Poles. He pointed out that political calculations, ideological disputes, and his own strategy could also stand behind the vetoes. He requested clarification on, among other things, the veto against the wind farm bill combined with solutions concerning energy prices, and then the presentation of his own project containing some of those solutions; the veto against the SAFE act regarding financing security and defense; and the referral of the act on extraordinary profits of fuel companies to the Constitutional Tribunal. He also asked about the vetoes against laws about the active farmer, the principles of practicing the profession by some doctors from outside the EU, the status of a close person, regulations of the cryptocurrency market — which were vetoed twice — and the amendment of the so-called Lex Kamilek. The author noted that Nawrocki had the right to use the veto power and conduct his own policy, although he still had fundamental doubts about the constitutional basis of his office's functioning. In his opinion, however, it was necessary to openly discuss the political, constitutional, economic, ideological, and strategic motives behind decisions, rather than presenting one's own actions as serving Poland, while portraying the government's actions as blackmail or a political game. He compared such a narrative to Trump's politics, where — as he wrote — one's own actions are presented as the state's interest, while opponents' actions are depicted as betrayal or blackmail. He added that Poland's system differed from the system of the United States and emphasized that he had provided just a few examples, without a detailed analysis of subsequent vetoes, laws, and statements. #Polska #polityka #demokracja (translated)
