In an interview on Telewizja wPoland, Marcin Warchoł, a member of the Sovereign Poland party, commented on ongoing political tensions surrounding migration and recent moves in European governance. He suggested that Brussels could be a destination for opponents who face pressure, noting that accountability for an attack on TVP would not fade away. Warchoł referenced a shift by United Right MEPs who previously lost immunity after expressing support for a migration-focused stance, and he claimed there is now a broader acceptance of the migration pact. He described the situation as a pre-planned campaign aimed at shaping Polish public opinion toward migrants and argued that hate speech and freedom of expression are entangled in EU efforts to regulate public discourse.
The central claim, as presented by Warchoł, is that populist rhetoric and media narratives are being orchestrated to influence Poland’s stance on migration. He criticized Donald Tusk for what he described as preparing Poland for a large-scale challenge, arguing that accepting migrants or paying fines could lead to a difficult dilemma. He noted that during a recent Council of Ambassadors, Polish representatives could have voiced concerns but did not. He emphasized electoral considerations, urging awareness among PSL voters before upcoming local elections.
Migration pact
From his perspective, a member of Ziobro’s faction argued that Poland’s reception of more than a million refugees might be expected to influence EU decisions in Poland’s favor. He contended this was not accurate, reminding readers that EC experts have suggested Poland could be asked to accept more migrants than Germany and that equalization payments could be a factor. He warned against postponing action and likened the situation to prior disputes over the rule of law, suggesting that financial support would not be guaranteed and that Poland’s justice system faced challenges tied to policy responses to migration and refugee quotas from Ukraine. He argued that no extra money would magically resolve these issues.
According to him, the public’s normalization of media pacification during the migration debate is not accidental. He suggested that early planning by political offices sought to limit reporting and keep information from the public. He asserted that courts have yet to address allegations of usurpation and noted ongoing legal processes that could involve financial, disciplinary, and criminal accountability for involved parties. He claimed some officials might relocate to Brussels should political paths open there, implying continued accountability for those responsible for actions against media outlets.
Comedy of investigative committees
Warchoł was asked about the parliamentary investigation into Pegasus and called the proceedings a political stunt. He described Pegasus as a system used across Europe to fight crime, contrasting it with German tools that preserve criminal material. He suggested some parties attempted to shield undisclosed information and criticized efforts to target prosecutors while defending the work of investigators who questioned officials. He asserted that allegations of illegal wiretapping are unfounded and that judges determine outcomes based on evidence.
He reiterated that allegations against PiS politicians, including former Prime Minister Morawiecki, regarding Pegasus were false. He argued that no prosecutor or security member would endorse illegal surveillance. He claimed the broader parliamentary investigation into Pegasus is part of a strategy to destabilize the United Right camp and warned of tactics aiming to fracture alliances to sow doubt and misdirection. He asserted that courts decide on a case-by-case basis, based on the evidence available, and cautioned against any assumption of a comprehensive list of suspects.
Warchoł described the committee as a potential spectacle designed to distract from other topics the December 13 Coalition would rather keep quiet, insisting that there is nothing to hide.
When asked about moves to remove MP Paweł Jabłoński from the Post-Election Investigative Committee, Warchoł argued that Jabłoński’s activity had become a liability for the coalition. He claimed there was selective scrutiny aimed at certain figures while other opponents did not face the same level of questioning. His conclusion was that the process was primarily political theater.
Powerful takeover of TK?
The parliamentarian speculated about a possible escalation in attempts to influence the Constitutional Court, noting parallel pressure seen in public media. He referenced ongoing legal actions initiated by Minister Ziobro and highlighted questions surrounding the court’s role in assessing EU regulations against the Polish constitution, as well as broader budget and economic concerns tied to the Krajowy Plan Odbudowy (KPO). He warned that constitutional decisions could become a battleground for migrants and questioned whether Poland should bear costs for another member state that does not repay its obligations.
He warned that Donald Tusk aims to tighten the system so that critical avenues for reference are closed, expressing concern about a potential attack on the Constitutional Court. The remarks stressed the importance of judicial review in addressing migration policies and their fiscal implications for Poland’s residents.
The broadcast encouraged viewers to follow Telewizja wPoland for continued coverage. Related discussions covered the migration pact’s adoption by the European Parliament committee and debates about possible parliamentary inquiries involving President Duda and other political figures. The coverage suggested how immigration trends and policy choices might unfold across Poland and the broader European landscape.
Source: wPolityce