The dispute around Poland’s leadership intensified as President Andrzej Duda vetoed the amendment to the Education Act, signaling his dissatisfaction with how discussions unfolded during negotiations over the National Reconstruction Plan. The veto came after he referenced a broader draft connected to the Supreme Court, a move that officials from the European Union had flagged as a milestone tied to unlocking EU funds. Among those weighing in was Szymon Hołownia, the leader of Poland 2050, who described the president as asserting strength and reasserting his political role during a press conference in Bydgoszcz.
READ ALSO:
-President Duda: I will not allow any legal act to undermine judicial appointments to be introduced
-President Duda: I did not participate in the preparation of the draft novella on the Supreme Court. He was not consulted with me
Button with text ‘veto’
The president stated on Thursday that the veto targeted the Education Act amendment while also referencing the Supreme Court draft. The government and European officials had indicated that the reform’s timing mattered for the National Reconstruction Plan, underscoring how the two issues were interconnected in Brussels and Warsaw.
Hołownia argued that the president’s remarks reflected a moment of political leverage. He noted that the president spoke for an extended period about perceived government humiliation and claimed he had been denied dialogue and access to information. The analysis suggested that Duda had used the veto to reaffirm his role in the public arena and to set a boundary for future negotiations with the ruling coalition.
Hołownia described the president as sending a clear message: the government should treat him with more regard, and if treated otherwise, the veto button would remain in sight. He said the veto aimed at the Morawiecki government and the PiS leadership in response to what he described as their early, strategic missteps in EU negotiations concerning KPO funding and the broader reform agenda. The remark was framed as a political recalibration by the head of state and as a test of the ruling coalition’s approach to judicial and constitutional matters.
Hołownia added that the Lex Czarnek veto had a place in this political narrative, arguing that the broader reform bill should be reconsidered and that the timing of any changes to the Supreme Court framework required careful evaluation. He noted that opposition leaders had reached a tentative consensus on the Supreme Court amendment, suggesting a willingness to pursue a broader, cross-party approach to the issue in the Sejm.
The 2050 leader observed that the president’s stance could influence how quick late-stage discussions on the National Reconstruction Plan would proceed. He described the president as setting a limit on the scope of changes deemed acceptable and warned that any alteration affecting judicial appointments would invite a veto, potentially affecting Poland’s access to EU funds from KPO. He stressed that the ultimate objective was to protect Poland’s financial interests and ensure a stable legal environment that would not undermine the independence of the judiciary.
Hołownia emphasized the need to pursue a lawful and orderly process in Parliament, with amendments debated openly and subject to broad approval. He urged participants to keep in mind that the funds from KPO represent money for Poland and for the nation as a whole, not for individuals or parties. He also noted that the political debate should remain focused on the rule of law and the country’s long-term governance rather than short-term political theatre.
The conversation around Czarnek’s proposals remained part of the broader critique, with Hołownia calling for a constructive, rule-based approach that would discard measures viewed as harmful or ineffective. He asserted that controversial bills should ultimately be discarded if they fail to deliver lasting reform. In his view, the controversy underscored the need for a clear, principled stand on the balance between political power and the independence of the judiciary.
Hołownia added that the party would push for a more collaborative process, inviting opponents to work toward practical solutions while acknowledging the political realities of the Sejm. He argued that Poland’s finances required careful stewardship and that any steps toward unblocking funds must come with safeguards protecting judicial independence and constitutional norms. He reaffirmed the central belief that Poland’s public money belongs to the people and should serve national interests rather than partisan agendas.
The president’s actions, Hołownia suggested, signaled a week of significant political momentum. He closed by predicting a dynamic week ahead as Parliament resumes work on the budget and on KPO-related measures. The dialogue, he believed, would reveal whether party lines could yield a coherent strategy that honors Poland’s constitutional framework and the expectations of its citizens. He noted that the public would be watching closely for signs of progress and accountability.
Decisions of the President
The president clarified that he had neither participated in preparing the Supreme Court amendment nor consulted on it. He called for calm and constructive parliamentary work on the bill. He added that he would not tolerate any changes that would undermine the constitutional order or grant agencies power to review presidential judicial appointments. The president asserted that the final call on judicial appointments rests with the head of state and that such a decision is binding.
Regarding the Education Act, the president explained that despite lengthy discussions, a social compromise had not emerged, and the draft was introduced by Parliament rather than through broad public consultation. He stated that stakeholders from across the political spectrum had voiced serious doubts and protests about the changes to school and home education and supervision of probation officers. The veto reflected his view that the act did not deliver the peace promised by other reforms, and he urged a calmer, more measured approach to legislation during a time of political tension.
In closing, the president underscored the need for diminished tensions in Poland and a commitment to orderly, lawful governance. The political discourse continued to unfold as parties prepared for the next parliamentary session and the ongoing efforts to align Poland’s reform agenda with EU expectations and long-term national interests. (Source: wPolityce; Reporting via multiple outlets and observers, including the Polish press and political commentators.)