The two Polish leaders diverged on foreign policy during recent discussions, with Prime Minister Donald Tusk noting that their disagreement did not come from a formal split but from different views on how Poland should engage abroad. He emphasized that, consistent with the Constitution, foreign policy is the responsibility of the government, while the President represents Poland in international forums.
On the eve of a formal ceremony appointing new ministers, President Andrzej Duda met with the head of government to exchange views on several sensitive topics. Among the issues reportedly discussed were the Nuclear Sharing Program, the National Court Register Act, the Central Communication Port, and the so-called competency law. Unofficial briefings from the presidential palace suggested that the prime minister rejected the Competence Act, indicating a constitutional friction over how powers should be allocated.
When asked about the specifics of their private conversation, Tusk told reporters that he does not reveal detailed negotiations. Yet he underscored that the two leaders held different perspectives on foreign policy and expressed hope for cooperation with the president where possible.
He urged the president to acknowledge a clear constitutional principle: foreign policy is shaped and executed by the government, while the president’s role is to represent the country in international relations. In his view, a cooperative approach, rather than confrontation at the highest levels, serves Poland’s interests and stability.
At the same time, Tusk indicated that he did not want a clash at the top of power, stressing that such a conflict would not benefit Poland or its government. The president’s stance on the so‑called competency law was highlighted, with Tusk noting that what matters most are actual competences rather than any legal provisions drafted to bypass constitutional norms.
Competence Act
The Competence Act would require the government to submit candidate proposals to the president for high‑level positions, including appointments such as a member of the European Commission or a judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union. The president would then have fourteen days to approve or reject these nominees.
Tusk made clear that foreign policy should not be driven by the ambitions of any single official, not even by someone of the presidency’s rank. He argued that policy should be negotiated with the government and pursued in Poland’s best interests.
Afterward, the prime minister concluded that the meeting had been amicable in tone, but not a formal agreement, underscoring the need for ongoing dialogue. He also pointed out that the European Commissioner is appointed by the head of the European Commission and is not a direct delegate of either Poland’s president or its prime minister in Brussels, implying that provisions in the Competence Act would not align with this framework.
Observers noted that Tusk’s public demeanor has a reputation for insisting on legal solutions that align with his political objectives, a posture some interpret as at odds with long‑term state‑building. The discussion reflects broader questions about how Poland balances domestic constitutional prerogatives with European commitments in a changing political landscape.
For readers seeking context, this exchange comes amid a wider debate about how executive powers are distributed and how Poland should navigate its role within the European Union while safeguarding its constitutional structure. The conversations signal continued scrutiny of proposed legal reforms and the practical implications for governance and foreign affairs.