You stated on November 7 that “any Progressive minister is a matter of coalition stability”, which to those involved in politics on a daily basis reads unambiguously as “we see no reason to replace any of our ministers, but if we are forced to do so, this government will fall because we would rather leave the coalition than sacrifice one of our ministers “. First of all, do you agree with this treatment?
I will perhaps explain my statement a bit, and then we can clarify its nuances. It was my decision to make such a statement, and it was very closely related to the meeting that the Minister of Defense had [Andrim Sprūdam] was with Combined list (AS) faction, in which I also participated. And I observed well both the content of the conversation and the atmosphere and dynamics. Already in the course of the conversation, I was quite clear about AS’s further tactics, that they will publicly demand his resignation, and considering that actually since September Progressive ministers, in particular, the Minister of Transport and Defense, are regularly in the public and political attention, that all kinds of questions about their potential resignation appear, my intention was to immediately remove this question from the agenda. In the question that was raised in the AS faction about the drone incident, I believe that there was no reason to demand the resignation of the Minister of Defense, there was no lying in my opinion, I agree that the communication was not optimal, but the AS tried to continue creating a narrative and thus destabilize the coalition. I will never mind listening to criticism and responding to demands for resignation as well, there is always a place for that. But in this particular case, I saw political games from AS and wanted to close this issue with my statement. There are many other possible clues to your question, but this one for my part explains the main point of my message last week.
I’m sorry, demanding the resignation of a minister and even the prime minister is the bread and butter of the opposition factions, this is not the first nor the last time. So why the fuss? My political logic tells me that your statement was not aimed at any opposition faction, but at the coalition partners and prime ministers, because it is not within the power of the AS, but only Prime Minister Evikas Silina to actually achieve the resignation of one of your ministers.
It is clear that this message is read by the coalition partners, other factions of the Saeima, as well as the wider society. What I agree with is that, of course, for the opposition factions – this is their job, but this does not mean that there are no limits to this type of activity, and it does not mean that I, as Progressive co-leader and leader of the faction, I can’t help but pay attention to what kind of story AS is trying to create – efforts to say that the minister is lying, which, in my opinion, simply does not correspond to the truth, efforts to say that the minister does not know something about what is happening in the industry, which also does not correspond to the truth. Because I was present at that conversation, and there were critical questions from Raimonds Bergmans and Andras Kulbergs, which also made me think, but then there were [Edgars] Mr. Tavar and [Edvards] Mr. Smiltēnas, who, in my opinion, simply imagined that they are the moral police of the parliament and think that any statement they make can remain without consequences.
Regarding the part of your question that is related to messages to more coalition partners, I can say right away that I did not write this message to the prime minister, JV, or ZZS. But, of course, I already know that they get to know and read these messages anyway, but the context of the announcement was, in any case, a meeting with AS.
Read the newspapers throughout the conversation Day in the issue of Friday, November 15! If you want to continue reading the newspaper in printed form, you can subscribe to it+