Former Polish diplomats call on the Law and Justice government to come to its senses and stop blocking EU budget

Share

Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland

More

It is still not too late. We call on the Law and Justice government to come to its senses. They have driven to the brink of the abyss. Will they have the common sense to step back? Or will they jump, taking the whole country with them?



Warsaw, 17 November 2020

Conference of Ambassadors of the Republic of Poland*

Veto against Poland

After five years of ineffectual and harmful European policy, the Law and Justice government has found itself in blind alley. Instead of backing down, it is heading for disaster. Like a bankrupt gambler, it pawns the interests of Polish citizens, antagonizing the other Member States of the European Union against itself and marginalizing its influence in this voluntary union of states.

 

In the history of the European Union one could count on the fingers of one hand the instances when a Member State threatened using the veto. This always took place in situations where the most vital, fundamental interests of a state were at stake. The use of this instrument has always been proportional to the entirety of matters being negotiated and understandable to other partners.

 

The threat that the Law and Justice government has advanced in recent days, signalling its readiness to block the final EU legal acts on the long-term budget and the Reconstruction Fund, does not meet any of these conditions.

 

The Law and Justice government is threatening the veto to force its partners to break the relationship between compliance with the rule of law and the use of European taxpayers’ money. In demanding that the words “rule of law” be deleted from the draft law establishing such a relationship, it finds itself almost completely alone. 25 out of 27 EU countries, the European Parliament, and the vast majority of EU citizens, including over 70% of Poles polled on this matter, support the link between respect for the rule of law and payments from the EU budget. Unlike the current Polish authorities, they all respect European values ​​and European laws.

 

Preventing the implementation of the EU budget and obstructing the Reconstruction Fund, as a consequence of a veto, would be a blow consciously inflicted on the societies of all EU countries, struggling with the impact of the pandemic and urgently needing support from both of these instruments. It would be particularly painful for the citizens of our own country. They would irretrievably lose nearly EUR 60 billion foreseen for Poland in the form of subsidies and loans from the Reconstruction Fund.

 

The Law and Justice government must surely be aware of these consequences and costs. So why does it embark on this suicidal course? Why does it jeopardize the vital interests of Poland and its citizens? Why is it showing partners that it is prepared to do massive harm to their efforts to mitigate the losses associated with the pandemic? Simply to be able to further dismantle the Constitution, the division of powers and bring everything under the control of one Party?

 

It is still not too late. We call on the Law and Justice government to come to its senses. They have driven to the brink of the abyss. Will they have the common sense to step back? Or will they jump, taking the whole country with them?

 

Signed:

Jan Barcz Michał Klinger Anna Niewiadomska
Iwo Byczewski Jacek Kluczkowski Jerzy Maria Nowak
Maria Krzysztof Byrski Tomasz Knothe Piotr Nowina-Konopka
Tadeusz Diem Maciej Kozłowski Agnieszka Magdziak-Miszewska
Paweł Dobrowolski Maciej Koźmiński Piotr Ogrodziński
Grzegorz Dziemidowicz Jerzy Kranz Ryszard Schnepf
Stefan Frankiewicz Andrzej Krawczyk Grażyna Sikorska
Urszula Gacek Andrzej Krzeczunowicz Katarzyna Skórzyńska
Marek Grela Henryk Lipszyc Tadeusz Szumowski
Andrzej Jaroszyński Bogumił Luft Andrzej Towpik
Adam W. Jelonek Piotr Łukasiewicz Wojciech Tomaszewski
Maciej Klimczak Jacek Najder Jan Truszczyński

 

*The Conference of Ambassadors of the Republic of Poland was established by former representatives of Poland. Its purpose is to analyse foreign policy, point out emerging threats to Poland, and make recommendations. We aim to bring these issues to the attention of the general public. We share common professional experience in shaping Poland’s position as a modern European State and a significant member of the Transatlantic community. We firmly believe that foreign policy is an expression of the interests of the State and not of the interests of the ruling party.



Author


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


More

Published

November 25, 2020

Tags

Supreme Courtdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawDisciplinary Chamberjudicial independencePolandEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUConstitutional TribunalZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human RightsMałgorzata Manowskapresidential electionsjudiciarypreliminary rulingsdemocracyJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsCJEUmuzzle lawHungaryEuropean Arrest WarrantAdam BodnarCOVID-19European Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary commissionerMateusz MorawieckiPresidentfreedom of expressionKamil ZaradkiewiczOSCENational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsProsecutor GeneralconditionalityConstitutionCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJcriminal lawNational ProsecutorelectionsMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of EuropePrime Minister2017freedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaFreedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice CommissionSupreme Administrative CourtEU budgetPM Mateusz MorawieckiMinistry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionWojciech HermelińskiAndrzej ZollMarek SafjanGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiPresident of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISMaciej NawackiTVPLex Super OmniaPaweł JuszczyszynBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan ŚwięczkowskiPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikdemocratic backslidingViktor OrbandecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJLech GarlickirecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeSupreme Court Presidentreportmedia freedomArticle 7European ParliamentZiobroconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelAndrzej StępkaMichał Laskowskihuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of the Republic of PolandLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekcourtsOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekAK judgmentSimpson judgmentEU law primacyForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcasterAdam Tomczyńskimutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresOLAFautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUJustice Defence Committee – KOSC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUStanisław BiernatTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaWhite PaperKazimierz DziałochalustrationMirosław Granattransitional justiceAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy Stępień2018Piotr TulejaNations in TransitSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczCouncil of the EUMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek Zubikmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerDidier ReyndersKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaOKO.pressUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskiWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatetransferPechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatetrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill