The debate centers on a controversial change to the Supreme Court statute. A prominent Polish professor argues that the amendment is unconstitutional, and he believes the opposition has essentially collapsed and paralyzed itself politically. The question remains: what would the ruling party and its media allies say about efforts to block funding?
And what would PiS and TVP say
According to reports from Brussels cited by government officials, the revised law on the Supreme Court has drawn a positive response from the European Commission and is described as a step toward unlocking funds from the European Union, including the KPO program. The author in a major Polish daily writes that the constitutional concerns about the law persist and that the opposition has made little effort to stop it.
Such commentary suggests that constitutional questions about the law are not a topic for serious public discourse, as observed by the author of the piece in that newspaper. The question posed is why the opposition did not block the bill. The professor explains that fear of the ruling party and its media arm played a role in their hesitation.
The dominant line from opposition spokespeople reduces the issue to a strategic calculation: what would the ruling party and TVP say if large EU funds for Poland were blocked?
The lawyer notes this point and argues that it is a naive way to frame the matter.
First and foremost, whatever the opposition does, the authorities would label them as traitors and enemies, a reminder that public opinion can be swayed by hostile media narratives. This perspective is cited in the article from that daily.
What consolation does the professor offer?
The scholar contends that society can be explained by the way it voted on the unconstitutional law. Delaying EU money for a few months, until after elections, is presented as a potential gain for Polish voters.
He acknowledges that the delay could benefit some in opposition circles, but argues that this view does not reflect the entire Polish population. Hence, he urges not to bow to blackmail from opponents or to suspend political action in response to populist pressure. The comparison is drawn with a national leader who spoke plainly on issues like reproductive rights and gun limits, illustrating a stance taken without fear of political backlash.
The professor notes that the power to decide on the law lies with the president, Andrzej Duda, a figure heavily involved in the process of passing legislation. The article comments that this is a normal constitutional role for the presidency and not a sign of improper conduct by the president.
The only consolation offered is the possibility that the new law may not persuade EU decision-makers, who assess such matters with a broader lens. The professor questions whether this stance is meant to signal a method for resisting populists rather than a real plan to secure funds. The idea that opposing parties would benefit from delaying money is treated as too narrow to describe the full national picture. The author also questions whether simply stating that EU funds are urgently needed might be dismissed as populism by some observers.
The piece closes with the acknowledgment that the funds tied to the KPO program are important, while inviting readers to consider the broader implications of political strategies and public trust in institutions. The memorandum concludes with attribution to the press outlet and mentions coverage in wPolityce as part of the broader discussion.
Source: wPolityce