He stated that his vote would align with the coalition’s final decision, noting that there are divergent views on the issue among partners, including with PSL. Ryszard Petru, a member of parliament for Trzecia Droga and chair of the parliamentary committee for economy and development, described his feelings about the 2024 budget during an interview with RMF FM. He admitted displeasure with the budget’s structure and its high deficit, yet he indicated he would vote in favor. He pointed out that an absent budget could effectively dissolve parliament.
Not fond of the high deficit
This is not our budget.
That was Petru’s summary as he commented on the draft 2024 budget law in an RMF FM interview. Nevertheless, this did not imply that the Third Way legislator would vote against the measure.
He explained that he would vote yes because the lack of a budget would trigger the dissolution of parliament. He did not approve of the budget’s design or the deficit. He argued that the spending increases implemented by Donald Tusk’s government, particularly in education and the broader budget, were justified as compensation for losses caused by inflation under PiS. He stressed that if the same budget were presented next year, he would push for changes in its structure.
The new administration had only a brief window to address the budget. The situation, he said, was very challenging.
He reiterated his position: voting in favor because the absence of a budget would effectively risk parliamentary dissolution. He did not like the budget’s structure or the deficit; he also reiterated that the government under Donald Tusk had raised spending on teachers and the public sector, which he viewed as appropriate to offset inflationary losses caused by PiS.
“Not every woman knows President Duda”
Polish politician Petru also weighed in on the legality of several state institutions, including the Constitutional Court.
He argued that a number of state bodies were created illegally and should not be treated as fully legitimate, listing the Constitutional Court, Mrs. Przyłębska, and the chambers formed by the neo-KRS as examples.
Petru was asked about confusion at the prosecutor’s office and offered his perspective through his characteristic conversational tone. He also commented on the cases involving MPs Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik.
He reflected that in Poland there are many instances where people are incarcerated and their relatives seek assistance from various institutions. He noted that not every spouse of a prisoner is familiar with President Duda and can request a meeting for a pardon. He suggested that not all prisoners are imprisoned for fighting corruption; some are indeed offenders, with the implication that pardons are possible in some cases. He added that past presidents, such as Lech Wałęsa, have pardoned individuals who were convicted and jailed, while acknowledging that these are nuanced historical details.
Petru asserted that there was no reason to prematurely dismiss those imprisoned, but he conceded that if the president chose to grant a pardon, such a path could be followed. He spoke on pardoning Kamiński and Wąsik when asked.
What about Bosak?
Turning to the vote on the left’s motion to remove Confederation MP Krzysztof Bosak from the position of Deputy Speaker of the Sejm and to strip immunity from Grzegorz Braun, RMF FM’s guest offered this assessment:
He would vote according to the club’s final decision, acknowledging divergent opinions on the matter. He noted that this agreement involved other coalition partners, including PSL.
Although Poland 2050 had not yet taken a stance on Bosak, the PSL — which is part of the Third Way — voiced opposition to such a move. Petru personally indicated a preference for Bosak’s dismissal, arguing that Braun’s conduct in the Sejm justified action against him.
If Krzysztof Bosak were to lose his role as deputy chairman of the Sejm, the opposition would lack a representative in the presidium. The new majority reportedly did not want to back Elżbieta Witek’s candidacy for the position. If PiS refused to participate in the Sejm Presidium, that would be their choice, Petru suggested. He also stated that he did not share the same view as Mrs. Witek and supported a different set of individuals; PiS, as an independent party, had secured the most votes in the Sejm elections.
In closing, the remark was made that there was no need to pity PiS, though perhaps they should be allowed to select their own candidate, just as other parties do. The discussion concluded with an acknowledgment that PiS’s electoral victory remains a fact of Poland’s political landscape.