Vitamin Dee

No one’s a faster typer than an elder millennial who took a keyboard class in middle school.

You asked 👇 HOW DID TUSK GET BACK IN? Poland has a President as well as a Prime Minister. The President is head of state, the Prime Minister runs the government day to day. Tusk was President of the European Council in Brussels - one of the top jobs in the EU. Big salary, big prestige. He came back to Poland in 2021 to take over his old party, Civic Platform. In October 2023 there was the general election. PiS - Law and Justice - actually got the most votes as a single party, but not a majority. Tusk put together a coalition of three - his Civic Coalition, plus Third Way, plus the Left. Between them they had just enough seats to take power. So President Duda had to give Tusk the chance to form a government, and he became Prime Minister again in December 2023. How did he win? He didn't win the conservative, working class, rural Poland. He won the big cities - Warsaw, Gdansk, Wroclaw - and he aimed his campaign at white liberal middle class women and young graduates who want to be seen as European, not Polish. Poland has secure borders. They have no mass no experience of the difficulties that are ahead . No immigration from Somalia, Afghanistan, places like that. Most people there have never lived with what we have lived with in England. So it's easy to vote liberal when you don't have to live with the consequences. Why would he leave a cushy EU job in Brussels to go back? Because Brussels needed him back in Warsaw. PiS were blocking EU federalism. They wanted to keep the Zloty, keep their gold, keep their borders, keep their own courts. They were a problem for Germany and Brussels. Tusk is their man in Warsaw. Put him back in to take over the courts, take over the Tribunal, open the borders, and get Poland into the Euro. That's why he came back. Not for Poland - for Brussels. @D_Tarczynski have I got this about right ?

They want to frame what is happening in Poland as right versus left. But the real issue is global control over sovereign decision making. Who decides a country’s future and who answers to its people? A dispute over appointments to Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, the court that determines whether laws comply with the constitution, has escalated into the suspension of its head and police blocking access to the courthouse. The country’s elected president had to make his way through a police cordon to enter. Does that sound at all reasonable or democratic to you? People can disagree about which side is right. But sending police to the courthouse does not establish that you are acting lawfully. And where does the authority end? National governments, EU institutions and courts all making decisions that affect people’s lives. When those authorities conflict, who is ultimately in charge? Who answers to the citizens? Countries must be able to reject terms that do not serve their people. International cooperation cannot mean surrendering the ability to say no. This is what concerns me: people exercising enormous power, spending public money and surrounding themselves with people who will never challenge them. The citizen comes last, expected to pay, comply and live with the consequences, then treated as the problem for objecting. How does anything improve when those responsible refuse to listen, resist accountability and expect the public to simply accept the consequences? What gives me hope is that people are questioning who holds power, how it is being used and whose interests it serves. Citizens are entitled to more than explanations for why a failing system must stay the same. No institution is entitled to unquestioning obedience. Every exercise of public power must have lawful authority, clear limits and accountability to the people.

BREAKING: EU has dropped the idea of offering Canada "associate member" status