Poland’s political debate over the KPO funds and the European Union’s governance framework has intensified as critics argue that Ursula von der Leyen wields influence beyond formal obligations. A prominent Polish politician, Witold Waszczykowski, a member of the European Parliament for PiS and a former Foreign Minister, suggested in an interview that von der Leyen could have walked away from existing arrangements with President Andrzej Duda and might now release the KPO money as a reward to Donald Tusk. The claim was framed as a question of political leverage rather than legal necessity, reflecting a view that the EU’s decision-making can feel more like political theater than strict law.
READ ALSO:
– OUR INTERVIEW. When will Poland receive money from the KPO? Rafalska: They can exert influence to help KO just before the local elections
– Everything clear! Bielecki in Rz: KPO is unblocked. Because Ursula von der Leyen must now reward Donald Tusk.
The wPolityce.pl outlet reported that Donald Tusk, following a meeting with von der Leyen, indicated that once a new government forms, KPO funds could begin to flow even in December, without any changes to the law. This assertion raised questions about the timing and conditions under which the money would actually be released. Waszczykowski suggested that the decision to suspend the KPO two years prior was political in nature and that the conditions attached to the program had been used to justify a delay. He argued that von der Leyen’s actions could bypass European legal norms in favor of political calculations, framing the situation as a test of political rather than legal constraints.
The potential unblocking of KPO funds was seen by many as a major economic boost for Poland, with billions of euros expected to bolster the national economy. The new government would likely promote the release of these funds as a victory, even as questions remained about timing and scale. Observers noted that opposition parties could portray the move as a significant achievement, but the practical reality would hinge on how quickly funds could be disbursed and whether they would be earmarked for specific, pre-approved projects. There was speculation that the new administration might scrutinize or revise the list of projects outlined by the prior PiS government, raising concerns about shifts in priorities or the reallocation of funds to different ventures than originally planned.
Waszczykowski warned that such a scenario is not unprecedented in European policy circles, pointing to what he called a process of mislabeling and reinterpretation of European law — a term he described as a form of legal carpentry or fakery where legal texts are bent to fit political objectives. He stressed that intentions from both Donald Tusk and Ursula von der Leyen could be unpredictable and subject to shifts in political alignment.
Wider discussions have recently touched on the feasibility of treaty amendments within the EU, including proposals to remove the veto in the EU Council. The central question remains whether these changes would survive the scrutiny of all member states and their parliaments. Critics note that while some proposals pursue more centralized decision-making, others fear that shifting powers could undermine national sovereignty. Proponents argue that deeper integration could streamline processes, while opponents warn that broad changes require broad consensus.
There is a sense in the policy discourse that some governments are wary of potential coercion by the European Union’s governing structures. Several states reportedly prefer to retain their authority and resist a wholesale move toward majority voting, even if a growing number of member states appear to lean toward broader powers for the EU institutions. In Poland and Hungary, at least, there seems to be a stronger preference for preserving national control over certain decisions, amid concerns that majority voting could dilute national interests. The broader debate, however, reflects a tension between the push for deeper EU integration and the insistence on safeguarding national policymaking autonomy.
Ultimately, the question that dominates this discussion is how the KPO funds will be managed under a new government and what conditions will govern their disbursement. Observers ask whether the money will be released in a timely, predictable manner or whether it will be distributed gradually as projects are reassessed. The outcome will influence the political narrative in Poland, shaping how the government and opposition position the KPO program to voters and how the EU’s approach to enforcement and funding aligns with evolving domestic and international political realities.
Citation: wPolityce