–

The recent remarks by Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party, sparked a strong backlash on social media in Poland. Weber welcomed the government changes led by Donald Tusk and endorsed actions that include the detention of Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik, a stance that many commentators found troubling and politically charged.

Weber has publicly expressed satisfaction with the detention, framing it as part of a broader effort to restore what he calls the rule of law in Poland. His remarks have intensified debate about Poland’s judicial and political reforms and how they align with European Union standards.

The EPP group in the European Parliament, which includes members from the Civic Platform and other allied factions, has been viewed by some Polish observers as taking a notably critical stance toward Poland. Weber’s public support for the new Polish government’s actions has raised questions about the direction of EU-Poland relations and the balance between national sovereignty and EU oversight.

Public reaction from Polish political figures

Several politicians and public commentators in Poland reacted strongly on social networks to Weber’s comments. The discourse touched on concerns about the independence of constitutional bodies and the perceived influence of EU institutions on Poland’s internal affairs.

Beata Szydło commented on the X platform that Weber’s support for the government’s actions reflects clear alignment with what she sees as a necessary step by the Tusk administration.

One voice expressed that Weber’s stance signals strong backing for the Polish government’s measures, arguing that the EPP leader’s position carries weight within both the party and the European Parliament.

Jacek Saryusz-Wolski argued that the EPP’s explicit support carries substantial meaning, noting a long-standing debate over the European Commission and the European Court of Justice’s approach to Poland’s judiciary and constitutional matters. In his view, the current actions of the Tusk government appear to be a continuation of that broader confrontation.

Another commentator, Dorota Kania, described Weber’s remarks as supportive but warned against legal conclusions drawn from any single stance, suggesting that the situation is part of a larger, ongoing political dynamic in Poland and Europe.

Kazimierz Smoliński characterized Weber’s comments as an endorsement of lawlessness and disorder in Poland, reflecting the polarized opinions surrounding the government’s reforms and the EU response.

A critic named Mariusz Kałużny questioned the plausibility of Weber’s support, hinting at internal political maneuvering and the potential for interpretations that depend on future developments.

Another perspective noted that Weber finally commented after concerns were raised that his position might have shifted in relation to Her Tusk, illustrating how high-level statements can be interpreted as signals to different political camps.

Observers continued to compare Poland’s domestic actions with EU expectations, highlighting the ongoing tension between national decision-making and EU governance, and the way such tensions influence political narratives across social platforms.

Analysts and commentators also drew attention to the broader discussion within European political circles about how to handle member states undergoing constitutional and judicial reforms, and what constitutes appropriate accountability measures within EU law and democratic norms.

Overall, Weber’s remarks fed into a larger online conversation about the Polish government’s approach to the judiciary, civil institutions, and the balance of power between national authorities and European oversight, a debate that remains active as policymakers and pundits assess the implications for Poland’s EU membership and future reforms.

Note: The discussion reflects a snapshot of public discourse and does not constitute a statement of official policy by the European People’s Party or its parliamentary group. Attribution is provided to the original public statements and the commentators cited within the discourse.