Nearly all members of the Citizens Coalition abstained on the amendment to the Supreme Court law, a move seen as a milestone in the ongoing debate over Poland’s judicial reforms and its relationship with European funds. Donald Tusk urged confidence, saying he believed the decision to vote for European funding would prove to be correct in time, noting that the coming days would reveal the impact of the vote on unlocking European resources. The head of the Civic Platform was defended by Roman Giertych, a prominent lawyer who expressed optimism about the election results benefiting Tusk and the party’s strategy.
On Friday, the Sejm voted to amend the Supreme Court law, presenting the change as a key step toward satisfying European Commission requirements and unblocking funds tied to the Kosciuszko Platform of European Funds (KPO). The amendment passed with 203 votes in favor, 52 against, and 189 abstentions. The voting pattern showed a broad alignment within the governing bloc, with nearly all PiS MPs supporting the amendment, while allies from Solidarna Polska, Konfederacja, and Polska 2050 opposed it. Members from the Civic Coalition, the Left, and KP-PSL largely abstained. Tusk described the document as imperfect yet potentially capable of unlocking the money that Poland needed to receive.
In comments after the vote, Tusk asserted that the real objective was not just institutional reform but the broader political aim of restoring the rule of law in Poland through the electoral process. He spoke at a gathering in Gdańsk, stressing that electoral success would be essential before substantial progress on the legal framework could be achieved.
Giertych’s defense of Tusk
Roman Giertych published a video on social media in which he reflected on Tusk’s remarks and the reactions to them. He framed the debate as a response to public outrage and argued that the decision to back the amendment was driven by a political calculation tied to the elections and the anticipated impact on the party’s fortunes.
Giertych outlined a difficult choice facing the leadership: accepting potential criticism for higher consumer prices and delays in receiving KPO funds, or exposing themselves to sharp attacks from opponents who argued against the law. The opposition’s abstention was presented as a strategic trade-off between electoral success and long-term stability for Poland’s legal community.
Giertych criticized the opposition for attempting to trap Tusk and blamed the government for broader inflationary pressures and delays in funding. He argued that the government’s stance toward Brussels showed a pattern of constant negotiations with European authorities, sometimes at the expense of constitutional principles. His remarks suggested a broader frustration with the political rhetoric surrounding the reform agenda and its implementation.
In his assessment, Giertych warned that the situation pointed to a possible period of political recalibration, with the governing coalition facing scrutiny and a call to respect constitutional judgments and international obligations. He suggested that Brussels would remember how Poland navigated these issues and that the row over constitutional compliance would influence future policy discussions.
Giertych also speculated about the political landscape after elections, hinting at possible changes in leadership roles and the balance of power within the ruling coalition. The discussion touched on the potential reshaping of key legal appointments depending on electoral outcomes and the broader direction of Poland’s governance.
Looking ahead, commentators noted the tension between urging adherence to constitutional norms and pursuing pragmatic solutions that could satisfy European requirements. The debate underscored the ongoing challenge of aligning national legal reforms with Brussels’ expectations while maintaining domestic political support.
Political maneuvering and public rhetoric
Observers highlighted a pattern of tonal shift and strategic messaging as leaders navigated a delicate path between defending national sovereignty and seeking European funding. The discourse centered on how the government, opposition, and their legal allies positioned themselves in relation to Brussels, the Polish constitution, and the broader constitutional order. While some praised the push for reforms as necessary, others cautioned against measures perceived as compromising constitutional standards.
Analysts noted that public statements often reflected the pressures of an electoral cycle, with lawmakers weighing short-term political benefits against longer-term implications for Poland’s legal autonomy and its standing within the European Union. The ongoing dialogue showed how legal changes can become a proxy battle for broader political legitimacy and policy direction.
Ultimately, the episode illustrated the fragility of consensus on constitutional reform and the enduring influence of European funding on domestic political calculations. The narrative suggested that future policy steps would require careful balancing of legal integrity, democratic legitimacy, and practical access to EU resources.