Note from the author of the call to continue construction of the CPK:
I am in no way associated with PIS, I have no personal interest in the construction of the CPK that we will talk about. On the contrary: I am an opposition voter, one of many who support this project cross-party, because it is strategically important for Poland’s development. I see the power of the call to continue building the CPK in a cross-party perspective.
Portal wPolityce.pl: On what basis did you decide that the CPK construction project was at risk?
Marcin Kwaśniewski, author of the call to continue the construction of the CPK: CPK has been under threat since PIS took it on as a flagship investment. This immediately pushed the project into a polarizing logic, dividing the CPK’s supporters and critics along party lines, and substantive arguments gave way to the eight-star philosophy.
The statement that the project is in danger when someone finally implements it sounds a bit strange.
I mean, of course, the threat of the then opposition, which is preparing to take power.
There are even more reasons for concern. Long-term strategic projects have been victims of the lack of state continuity in Poland for years. This affected the construction of nuclear reactors, the modernization of the military, energy transformation and transport infrastructure. No political formation here is historically flawless. The petition we are talking about is a call to break the vicious circle of the so-called cadence. A phenomenon that is destructive to the state and its development.
From the perspective of the new government, it is much easier and faster to destroy than to build. It is much easier to please the hard voters by eliminating the Institute of National Remembrance, the CBA, TVP or CPK with the wave of a hand than to deliver on positive promises to the whole of society. Today, public opinion receives conflicting signals about the construction of both CPK components from the representatives of the new parliamentary majority. There are several speculations and rumors circulating, some of which are ominous for the future fate of the investment, but it seems that the final decision on this has not yet been made, which gives hope. Hence the ‘Call for continued construction of the CPK’.
What impartial and non-aligned analyzes and discussions on the CPK did you have in mind when you wrote in your call about “the absolute majority of independent analyzes and reports supporting the continuation of this project”?
Many of these documents are well known to the parties of Donald Tusk, Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz and Wlodzimierz Czarzasty. After all, they emerged at the initiative of and during the PO, PSL and SLD governments and have lost little of their relevance. This is one of the messages in the appeal to the leaders of the former opposition. Historically, this is also your project: see it through to the end, cut the ribbons in front of the cameras, and at the same time you will do it in the cross-party interest of the state. 20-10 years ago you knew about the need for a new, large airport in the center of the country. The impossibilism typical of our country stood in our way. The passage of time only confirmed the predictions of an increase in passenger flows and the increasing inefficiency of existing airports. Today, the justification for the hub’s existence, rather than typical Polish ideas for further improvised solutions, has become even clearer.
READ ALSO:
THERE ARE ARGUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CPK, AND ANTI-PIS SLOGANS AGAINST
Politicians in Poland too often play an unserious game of short memory, insulting the intelligence of their own voters. They present themselves as sworn enemies of the projects they championed a few years earlier. Let us remind them of the most important documents that ever crossed their desks that pointed to the necessity and profitability of CPK.
2003 Report of the Inter-Ministerial Central Airport Site Selection Team 2006 CPK Feasibility Study
2007 Airport Network Development Program in Poland
2010 Analysis for the Ministry of Infrastructure carried out by 4 external companies 2013 Transport Development Strategy until 2020
The above list should put an end to the debate, unless we plan to drag it out for fifty years, as in the case of nuclear construction, or a hundred years, as in the case of highways. Does Cezary Grabarczyk, Minister of Transport in Donald Tusk’s government, who expressed confidence in the CPK in 2019 and referred to profitability analyzes from 2009, not seem impartial on this issue? Let us now continue with the debate of recent years. Let’s skip some reports commissioned by the CPK that deny the investment’s opponents the argument of self-interest. We still have:
Expertise from the Sobieski Institute Expertise from the Railway Institute
Report for Polityka Insight (it is difficult to imagine that this medium prefers PIS)
Pulaski Foundation analysis
Expert advice from the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). IATA forecasts (not commissioned by CPK)
YOU CAN SIGN THE PETITION BY CLICKING HERE
There are also extensive statements available in the media from people with professional achievements who spend their private time methodically debunking myths surrounding the CPK. As far as I know they are not affiliated with the CPK or PIS; on the contrary, they often criticize the outgoing government. (I apologize in advance to these people for the lack of accuracy in describing their views.) Andrzej Banucha, former director of PKP Cargo, expert of the Polish Road Transport Institute. Sebastian Mikosz, president of LOT, during the PO government. Maciej Wilk, also former director of LOT. Filip Lamański, editor-in-chief of the Economic Observer. Maciej Bukowski, lecturer at the University of Warsaw, head of the WISE Institute, who became convinced of CPK after years of criticism. Cezary Kaźmierczak, president of the Association of Employers and Entrepreneurs, a frequent critic of PIS. The absolute majority of Polish military analysts, whose public statements I follow every day, support the continuation of both components of the CPK. Famous geopoliticians such as Andrew Michta, Jacek Bartosiak, Marek Budzisz and Krzysztof Wojczal, who entered into sharp discussions with both men on other matters. Here we have classic agreement between divisions. It is necessary to mention the List of 100, which was organized, among others, by the head of the Polish Economic Network, Jan Oleszczuk-Zygmuntowski. In the above text, the so-called academic economists reject the anti-development budget fundamentalism of the old liberal guard of the 1990s. They point to the stability of Poland’s public finances and the need for rapid development of public investments. Mr Jan signed our call and I think most signatories of Letter 100 will agree with him.
I could go on for a long time to name other famous public figures who supported the call by signing and promoting it. However, I have no illusions that CPK critics will study the dozens of documents or interviews mentioned. I am trying to convince the most hardened people with the willingness of private, foreign companies – Vinci and IFM – to invest billions of zlotys in the CPK airport hub. There are no greater specialists and practitioners in the world in the field of these types of projects.
I admit that there is not one analysis on the long list above, but it would be very useful. Calculations of missed development benefits due to work interruption.
How do you assess the potential impact of such a call – if signed by an appropriate number of people, including experts and opinion leaders – on the implementation of the CPK construction project?
I’ll take it easy. Collecting signatures will take at least until the end of the year. The petition will be filed electronically, and probably also on paper. I will certainly also make use of direct contact with the President of the Sejm, Szymon Hołownia, as he is one of the recipients of the call and he wanted to follow me on the website X (Twitter). Everything is allowed, in the interest of the case.
Some signatories are understandably concerned about the effectiveness of the petition. There is no other way to check it than in practice, by signing it and handing it over to the decision makers. Feeling like you did your best. I know other popular calls in Poland that had an impact on the recipients, for example the big company Astra Zeneca. I see our initiative as part of broader efforts by many people involved pro bono on this issue. I write ‘our initiative’ because, even though I wrote and started it myself, it became privately owned by all signatories. There is room for further actions in support of the CPK, for example the traditional list of public figures and expert circles. Our petition could certainly have an even greater reach if it were under the protection of PIS or related organizations. However, this would immediately discredit her as selfish and political in the eyes of many people. It is impossible to effectively strive for a cross-party continuation of the CPK using party instruments. The call tries to remove the CPK from the political struggle, through the logic with which the CPK is attacked. The strengths of the call are its grassroots character and its apolitical character.
The petition tries to be pragmatic and accepts the CPK audit as a way to get out of the new government’s campaign statements and accommodate the revanchism of the iron electorate. Personnel changes and giving CPK its own style would be a small price to pay for continued construction in both components.
I count on the rationality of the new government. First of all, an air hub is a response to the real needs of the state and society. For the inefficiency of airports. The extreme underdevelopment of air freight. The former opposition complained about the low level of public investment. We must believe that politics is still there to solve such problems, not to appease populism. Second, the level of progress of the project. Many commentators do not realize that planning, designing and obtaining permits is often a more time-consuming process than actual construction. Third: moderate costs for the budget. Depending on the participation of private investors, in the case of the airport part, as far as I know, we are talking about several or ten billion per year. Coincidentally, this is the airport section that has the greatest potential to generate returns on investment.
‘A call for the continuation of the construction of the CPK’ is the most popular petition in Poland today. In just four days, 12,000 people signed it. I encourage all pro-state people to join this initiative.
THE PETITION HAS ALREADY BEEN SIGNED BY THIRTEEN THOUSAND PEOPLE. YOU CAN PARTICIPATE – CLICK HERE
The interview was conducted by Jakub Maciejewski
Source: wPolityce