Everything to privatize?
At the press conference, Tusk spoke about the draft amendment to the Supreme Court act and its potential impact on EU funds. He indicated that the outcome of the first parliamentary reading in the Sejm would shape the course of negotiations with the European Commission and the flow of funds tied to the European Union financial mechanisms. The former prime ministerial candidate from the Civic Platform outlined a path where the opposition would not block the bill if the core conditions were met and the government could move forward transparently with the changes it approved. He suggested the debate should focus on the practical outcomes and the government’s ability to finalize terms that satisfy EU expectations.
According to Tusk, the authors of the amendment view the draft as a milestone that could unlock financial assistance. He framed the issue as a test of political unity within the ruling coalition and the willingness of the opposition to support a measure aligned with EU requirements. The PO leader asserted that accountability for the delay in funds rests with the government and the ruling party, pointing to internal disputes as the main obstacle to delivering tens of billions of euros to Polish families and businesses. He called for a focused and serious approach to ending the dispute and enabling the funds to reach the real economy.
In one part of the remarks, Tusk faulted the prime minister for lengthy ministerial negotiations, arguing that it is the prime minister’s duty to direct ministers rather than stretch talks over months. He underscored that more weighty than individual personalities is the broader future of Poland and the ability to secure vital EU funds for the nation. The appeal was clear: end the current quarrel so the opposition could support the law without creating new obstacles. The opposition would consider a unified stance if the bill, as presented by the prime minister, is consistent with EU expectations.
Asked how the Coalition would vote if the opposition’s proposed amendments are defeated, Tusk said it was too early to decide. The final shape of the document was not yet clear, making a precise voting forecast impractical at that moment. He noted that if the draft reflects negotiations with the European Commission and remains unlikely to provoke dissatisfaction from Brussels, support from the PO and the entire opposition could be feasible, either through voting yes or abstention. The aim, he expressed, was to act in concert so that the funds could be mobilized without blockages.
He reiterated his position that the government should not fear reasonable amendments from the EU but insisted any changes that align with EU requirements would likely be acceptable. The overarching message remained simple: cooperation between parties could unlock the promised financial resources and shorten the path to implementation for those measures that affect Polish households and enterprises.
Senate pact
During the session, attention turned to the Senate Pact and what it means for the legislative process. The question was raised whether the pact would alter the course of the bill or energy surrounding its adoption. The prevailing view expressed by Tusk was that the pact remains a stable element with little chance of immediate change, signaling a steady path ahead for the legislative procedure. The discussion reflected a broader concern about how quickly the plan could be refined to meet EU standards while remaining aligned with domestic political expectations.
In summary, the conference highlighted the tension between maintaining rigorous EU alignment and pursuing swift domestic decisions. The participants acknowledged the heavy vote expected in the Sejm and the importance of a credible, unified approach if the government seeks to secure the funds earmarked for Poland. The dialogue underscored a pragmatic stance: if the bill can satisfy EU conditions and enable progress, cross-party support could follow, avoiding protracted stalemates.
Note: The remarks summarized here reflect the views and positions voiced during the gathering and are representative of the participants’ public statements. They do not constitute an official party platform or a formal legislative assessment.