Speaker A
Dominika Wielowiejska. Welcome, everyone, and I invite you to "Elections in Progress." And in the studio, Gabriela Lenartowicz, Civic Coalition. Good morning.
Discussion on school violence, Digital Services Act, political accusations, and potential trial of Adam Glapiński in Poland.
Key Takeaways
- School violence incidents have prompted urgent government action and legislative changes.
- The Digital Services Act remains controversial due to fears of censorship versus the need to block harmful online content.
- Political parties are deeply divided, with accusations of exploiting tragedies for political advantage.
- The State Tribunal motion against Adam Glapiński signals increasing scrutiny of financial governance.
- Effective and timely intervention by security services in online threats is a critical concern.
What the video covers
- The video covers recent violent attacks in Polish schools and the government's response to ensure safety.
- The Sejm passed the Digital Services Act aimed at blocking pathological content online, sparking political controversy.
- Minister Bogucki accused Donald Tusk of exploiting school tragedies for political gain, which was strongly contested by opposition MPs.
- The discussion highlights the January veto of the original Digital Services Act by President Karol Nawrocki due to censorship concerns.
- The revised Digital Services Act was signed in September after splitting the original bill, allowing for more targeted content blocking.
- Debate ensues over the balance between censorship and safety, especially regarding live broadcasts of crimes.
- Political tensions are evident with accusations of aggressive rhetoric and media campaigns linked to Law and Justice party affiliates.
- The video also touches on the powers of Polish security services to intervene in online content of a terrorist nature.
- There is a segment on the Constitutional Accountability Committee recommending a motion to bring Adam Glapiński, President of the National Bank of Poland, before the State Tribunal.
- The discussion includes concerns about the independence of institutions and the financial state of the Polish budget.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Guest Panel
- 06:09School Violence Incidents and Safety Measures
- 11:05Digital Services Act and Political Controversy
- 15:38Debate on Online Censorship and Live Crime Broadcasts
- 20:15Political Accusations and Media Campaigns
- 29:02Constitutional Accountability and Adam Glapiński's Case
- 38:02Financial and Institutional Independence Concerns
- 42:51Closing Remarks and Political Commentary Invitation
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
Good morning. Krzysztof Szczucki, Development Plus. Good morning. Morning. Welcome, everyone. Alwin Gajadur, Presidential Chancellery.
Speaker A
Good morning. Welcome, everyone. Sławomir Świk, Center Union. Good morning. Good morning. Welcome. And Dariusz Wieczorek, The New Left.
Speaker A
Good morning. A warm welcome to all of you. Uh, on Thursday, October 8th, at a primary school in Leszczydół-Nowiny in the Wyszków district, a former 15-year-old student attacked three people with a sharp object, including the school caretaker, who died. Uh, during the, during the attempt to overpower the teenager, the school principal and a teacher were injured. On Wednesday, October 7th, in Ostrołęka, a 19-year-old attacked nine people with a knife. That same day in August, the police also detained a 17-year-old who
Speaker A
was planning an attack at school. These are not the only incidents this week. At the same time, we have information that officers inspected nearly 35,000 facilities, and services detained 59 people across the country, the police reported. There was one goal: ensuring
Speaker A
the safety of children, youth, and all staff in educational facilities. 24,000 police officers supported by municipal guards monitored schools and their surroundings, and at the same time, the Sejm passed the Digital Services Act once again, which provided for blocking
Speaker A
pathological content on the web. Well, this matter stirred very strong emotions, because Minister Bogucki, head of President Karol Nawrocki’s chancellery, accused Donald Tusk of trying to politically exploit the tragedy and link it to the presidential veto by referring to this draft law. I
Speaker A
will remind you that in January, President Karol Nawrocki vetoed this bill, which was supposed to allow for blocking pathological content on the web, claiming precisely that censorship could be introduced here. And I have a question for MP Lenartowicz: how would
Speaker A
you respond to these accusations from Minister Bogucki? These accusations are truly a classic case of shifting the blame, but with great aggression. This is an example that this aggression happens not only on the web, but also in the Sejm
Speaker A
chamber. And from the mouth, uh, and from the mouth of the head of the chancellery, no less. Uh, it is outrageous how the head of the chancellery refers to the Prime Minister, but also to the entire Sejm, and the words he uses. I sometimes have
Speaker A
the impression that lately, at the hands of some right-wing MPs, but also some other representatives, we are dealing with...
Speaker A
MP, I must, I must interrupt, I apologize, because there is some technical issue. I will give you the floor back, as Alwin Gajadur from the Presidential Chancellery is with us.
Speaker A
Well, Minister Bogucki is making accusations, strong words were even used here, the word "hyena," right, was used, but I am looking, for example, at the banners on Telewizja Republika, which is linked to Law and Justice, and I read: "Tusk funds government
Speaker A
propaganda instead of psychiatry." Tusk's school of innovation and planetary diet instead of safety. A tragedy at school as a pretext for Tusk to introduce censorship. The tragic toll of leftist ideology in Tusk and Nowacka’s schools. Students are afraid to go to school under Tusk's
Speaker A
rule. Do you think these are neutral headlines, or is this the exploitation of a tragedy for a very aggressive political campaign?
Speaker A
First of all, we express our condolences, our sincere condolences to the family of the murdered school employee, and we hope for a speedy recovery for those injured. However, addressing your question, editor, one must clearly state that it was Donald
Speaker A
Tusk who attacked President Karol Nawrocki in a cynical way, because he used an unimaginable tragedy to attack the head of state. Let’s perhaps recall the facts. The President vetoed the Digital Services Act in January because it was a bad law that was meant
Speaker A
to censor online content. A bureaucrat could have censored statements, rather than a court. And that is what the December 13th Coalition did. They improved these regulations. They actually did improve them. It took a long time, it really took a long time,
Speaker A
but on September 25th, the President signed the act on the supervision of digital services, so the act is signed, and I don't know what Prime Minister Donald is talking about regarding the act that was just passed, because it was the same as the one that
Speaker A
was vetoed. I am saying that the Sejm has now passed the Digital Services Act. There was a veto in January against a bad law. The coalition split that one law into two. In September, the President signed the main part of this
Speaker A
act, or rather this split part, so there is nothing to discuss here. However, the coalition spent 9 months processing this act for a very long time. And when the tragedy occurred, they brought it to the Sejm for a vote
Speaker A
in a single day. I must say that it is symptomatic that you did not answer my question, because I cited specific examples. But one more thing, because in November, or rather in 2024, the Sejm passed an act that gives the head
Speaker A
of the ABW the ability to interfere with such content that is of a terrorist nature and block it. So Donald Tusk has tools that can block this type of thing and he should use them. Let’s remember the pensioner
Speaker A
who wrote unflattering words about Jerzy Owsiak. At 6:00 a.m. At 6:00, yes, but police officers came to her home at 6:00 a.m. Why doesn't the police react effectively here if there are such cases? The government has the
Speaker A
services, the government has the responsible institutions that should react when such disturbing things happen.
Speaker A
Allow me to express my opinion. I believe that every person who threatens a public figure with death online should have it checked by the services.
Speaker A
If someone threatens Jarosław Kaczyński with death online, I am absolutely in favor of the services coming in the morning. But we can see how that lady was treated; at 6:00 a.m.
Speaker A
the police entered the home of an ailing pensioner. If there are others, there are others as well. The police, but the police should, should act and should, in case there are those things you mentioned, some disturbing things on the internet, they should act
Speaker A
effectively as well, and Donald Tusk should not be exploiting this. I will return, I will return to Ms.
Speaker A
Lenartowicz. I just want to remind you all that Alwin Gajadhur did not answer my question regarding the assessment of those captions. Please go ahead, Ms. MP.
Speaker A
First of all, Mr. Alwin Gajadhur is talking about something other than what is discussed in the law vetoed by the president. The point here is not to prosecute someone post-factum for criminal threats, because that is always possible. The point was to be
Speaker A
able to block this type of information and such behavior on the web live, immediately. The Prime Minister gave an example here that is the most illustrative. Therefore, if that 15-year-old killer, who had cameras, wanted to broadcast it live, then
Speaker A
because there was no presidential veto, it could not have been blocked live immediately. And that is the point.
Speaker A
I understand. Mr. Szczucki, please. First of all, this law, if I imagine it being pushed by a right-wing government, then many journalists and also politicians of today's ruling coalition would be tearing their hair out, screaming about censorship, because
Speaker A
there would indeed be a great risk of silencing content that might be borderline or not necessarily on the side of hate and intolerance; such a risk would exist that they would be silenced. Because there is no doubt that if someone is doing "patostreaming,"
Speaker A
if someone is committing a crime on air or on social media and broadcasting it, sowing hatred, then we agree on that, right? That is unacceptable, but the regulations are written in such a way, and they also entrust powers to
Speaker A
officials, officials of the Office of Electronic C
Speaker A
officials, officials of the Office of Electronic Communications. Only at a later stage, it is unclear when those decisions would be reviewed by a court, so people are simply afraid that internet freedom would be violated, because it is some...
Speaker A
But, but I have a question. If that young man actually started doing a live broadcast of this, of the crime he is committing, are you in favor of cutting it off immediately or waiting until a court decides if it can be done?
Speaker A
It can, it can be done immediately and it can be done with the help of a court . Well, I can at least imagine it.
Speaker A
Judges are on duty. Criminal judges are on duty. It's happening live. Before a court gathers, several hours will pass.
Speaker A
Even if you assume that such a fast reaction is actually possible, which the head of the ABW can block such terrorist content immediately. We can find different solutions. However, I get concerned every time government-subordinate officials are granted such powers, and it doesn't
Speaker A
matter who is running the government or who holds the majority; it is simply dangerous for democracy. There is a terrible margin of pathology on the internet. We must find solutions on how to fight this, but we cannot throw the
Speaker A
baby out with the bathwater, because in a moment, ma'am, if these regulations were to pass, there would be a great debate, even during an election campaign, as to whether the temptation might arise for this or that official, acting under a specific political order
Speaker A
, to shut down a website, a profile, or a message from a certain political circle, because, for example, the ruling politicians consider it hate speech, while that politician considers it simply expressing their views. The line can be thin. You know it, ma'am,
Speaker A
because you operate in the realm of freedom of speech, and we really cannot so lightly introduce tools that can censor that freedom of speech. Perhaps the phenomenon of pathology involves cases that leave no room for doubt. Go ahead, please. Sławomir Dźwik, Center
Speaker A
Union. May I start with a general point? I am very surprised that the right wing is completely unbothered by the fact that today, Chinese TikTok and American Meta can censor content on Polish social media profiles at will. They can
Speaker A
deactivate the accounts of individual users according to their own whims. And you accept that. Here, when we are implementing the DSA—Digital Services Act—and the president actually vetoed the act in January, he forced it to be split into two parts. In September, he
Speaker A
signed the part that minimally implemented the act and established the institutions, and this latest bill was the one that truly implemented the DSA so that it could function. And the goal of this act was for content that is
Speaker A
unacceptable, that spreads pornography, pedophilia, information on human trafficking, incitement to commit crimes, suicide, or murder, to allow a state authority to immediately intervene and block it. As far as posts are concerned, regarding content, in fact, the President of the UKE [Office
Speaker A
of Electronic Communications] deals with them, and for video formats— videos—the National Broadcasting Council handles it, which is a constitutional body, not just some official appointed by the government.
Speaker A
Gentlemen, what are you talking about? The UKE head is an official appointed by the government, but that only applies to posts, not videos. For videos, the decision is made by the National Broadcasting Council. And you say that a court
Speaker A
should handle this. So you are aware that there would be no immediate state reaction, no immediate action, because a panel of judges would have to convene . Then you would also say that those were politicized judges on speed-dial.
Speaker A
You are simply trying at all costs to do something to paralyze the state. And in a situation where we are threatened by this massive disinformation from Russia, which is waging a hybrid war, or actually a cognitive war, against
Speaker A
Poland. And you talk about fake free speech, because this isn't about free speech, this is solely and exclusively about fighting the government, and that is unfortunately the domain of Minister Bogi and the President, who could truly have been a statesman,
Speaker A
right? Because there was also a situation during this debate where Przemysław Czarnek from Law and Justice took the podium and accused the ruling coalition of again refusing to accept some PiS amendments. And then Paweł Bliźniuk from the Civic
Speaker A
Coalition came up and said, "What do you mean? We actually recommended accepting those amendments." Could we summarize whether, during this work, any proposals from the opposition or the president were included in this Digital Services Act and the blocking
Speaker A
of pathological content? Uh? Deputy Prime Minister Gawkowski summarized this very clearly in his statement. During the committee work in the Sejm on this act, do you know how many times the president's representative was present at the committee meetings? Not once. They only
Speaker A
came once, when there was a discussion about overturning the president's veto, to present the chancellery's position, to not overturn the veto. During the substantive work, during the public hearings, which happened twice, during the speeches by experts who spoke about
Speaker A
it, there was no one from the president's chancellery even once. And that is what the president was busy with. He was only thinking about vetoing Mr. Wieczorek. Is an agreement possible between the ruling coalition and the president regarding the shape
Speaker A
of this act, so as to lead to its signing? I mean, Ms. Editor, ladies and gentlemen, I am listening to this discussion and I am thinking about what our listeners and viewers think of us.
Speaker A
They probably think this. What are they even discussing here? There is a problem, a tragedy has occurred. There is no doubt about that. And yet we are here throwing around paragraphs that none of the Poles really know anything
Speaker A
about. The key in this whole matter is, of course, adopting a legal solution that would allow blocking all this " patho-streaming," and that was what the act in December was for, and with all due respect to the president, he had
Speaker A
the right to sign it, he had the right not to sign it. If he had signed it, we probably wouldn't even be discussing this today. However, the problem right now is this. We must reach out to parents, we must reach out to children.
Speaker A
We must contain this insane panic that we have been dealing with in recent days, and a discussion like this doesn't exactly help with that. I would prefer us to discuss this. Perhaps because I know a bit more, because I
Speaker A
will honestly admit that at the last meeting of the Intelligence Services Committee, we talked exactly about this topic, so we have this information. The president likely has this information, too. I will stand with full determination in defense of the Polish
Speaker A
police, in defense of the ABW, because I see how many things are being done in this matter and we also asked if such an instrument is actually needed. It is absolutely necessary. The board that Alwin Gajad presents, that in total the
Speaker A
head of the ABW can block it in terrorist cases. Only in terrorist cases. Ladies and gentlemen, we have seen what is happening on the web. We have seen it, of course there is a question regarding where it comes from, whether someone is
Speaker A
perhaps provoking it, or if it was some kind of challenge. Yes, well, it’s known, but, but you can see how this youth communicates with each other. All these messengers, the network, everything is being monitored. There are ongoing reactions here. However, it
Speaker A
really was not possible to prevent the tragedies that the minister spoke about here. But really, it is, I have the impression, some one, second, or third case that cannot be a basis for us to be afraid, to fear coming to school, or
Speaker A
to sow some kind of panic. We must control these emotions, and this law that we are talking about here, fine that it was adopted in such a form, in another we traded some invectives between the president and the prime
Speaker A
minister, it's okay. However, it is, well, it’s not okay in the sense that fine, it happened, it’s done, but today it just needs to be signed. Today there is no need to fear the issue of freedom of speech at all, because,
Speaker A
because look at what is happening on the internet. Look at what a bad influence it has on the youth, not only in Poland, but all over the world. So this must be counteracted. However, I understand your concerns. Therefore,
Speaker A
let’s agree, let the president sign it. If one case happens where the Polish services block, I don’t know, the opposition in some statements and so on, then we will return to the topic . Because only then will it be possible
Speaker A
to make decisions and say: perhaps this law, this law went too...Because let me remind you: at this moment we are discussing the law on the National Revenue Administration, where the Polish Deal, as you remember, gave the ability to access our accounts. Even if
Speaker A
there is no case against us, we have no charges, the National Revenue Administration could access the accounts of Polish women and men. Today we are changing that, and I bow my head to Development, to PiS, because suddenly everyone is saying: "Yes, we
Speaker A
really went too far with that freedom." So today, if this bill passes, and the president will certainly sign it because everyone supports it, the National Revenue Administration will be able to access our accounts if—knock on wood—one of us faces charges and
Speaker A
an investigation is underway. "Right, Member of Parliament, to wrap up this topic, a question for Alwin Gajadur. Is any agreement on this bill possible?
Speaker A
Any amendments that the president is very keen on? Madam editor, when the bill reaches the president's desk, the president will make a decision. However , the bill is still going to the Senate , so the Senate will still be working
Speaker A
on it. Exactly. But will the president come to the Senate committee meeting, because I hear that no representative of the president has been attending at all.
Speaker A
The president, the president signaled, invited to talks. Unfortunately, the governing coalition acted as it always does. The problem is that the committee work is ongoing. I don't know if you know how the Sejm works. The committee is working on the draft. Therefore, one
Speaker A
must come to the committee meeting and submit a proposal. Right? If the president's representative does not attend, then we have a problem.
Speaker A
The president's representative frequently attends various committees; the president's representatives do participate. I also participate, for example, in the infrastructure committee. However, there will surely still be a discussion in the Senate, and we will see how the work goes in
Speaker A
the Senate, and then the president will make a decision. Will the president still push this concept of expanding the ability to obtain a gun license, to make these rules much more liberal?
Speaker A
And did the president say that it is worth starting a discussion on this topic? So it is about a discussion, about talks, about consultations. And what it will be like in the future, we shall see.
Speaker A
I understand. A question for the congresswoman. Is an agreement with the president possible? I think that regarding this bill concerning digital services. If the president would respect the constitution and his prerogatives and simply sign bills that are in the public interest,
Speaker A
consistent with the public interest and consistent with the constitution. Let me remind you, the president has the authority to veto a bill.
Speaker A
Of course he does, and not only because it is inconsistent with the constitution. No one imposes such duties on the president, that was in January and the coalition improved some provisions, so listen it was an attempt, an attempt to appease, so to
Speaker A
speak, the president. Then why was there a veto? After all, after that veto, in an interview, the president's wife, Mrs. Nawrocka, the First Lady, said that the point was that if this bill had been introduced and those regulations, she would not have been in
Speaker A
that interview, and her husband would not have won the election. Well no, that is Please, go ahead. I refer you, I refer you.
Speaker A
Ladies and gentlemen, we are coming to the end of this thread. Please, go ahead. Member of Parliament, but literally just one sentence. Exactly.
Speaker A
Exactly, almost exactly, one sentence, Member of Parliament, so that the President notes that even the largest opposition club, the Law and Justice club, recognized its mistake and did not vote against this act. They abstained.
Speaker A
And I also assure the right-wing that if MP Berkowicz and others on the right still want to insult journalists and women online in individual cases, this does not fall under this act. You will still be able to do that. Although I do
Speaker A
not approve of it at all. Yes, it is unrelated, because no one can block MP Berkowicz, who did a disgusting thing.
Speaker A
I hope he gets sued. I apologize for this personal remark, and I hope he pays the price for what he is doing, because he insulted a journalist who asked a very simple question:" Were you in the military? "and since then, there
Speaker A
has been harassment inspired by MP Berkowicz. But ladies and gentlemen, I would like to bring up a new topic now, namely that the Constitutional Accountability Committee has decided to recommend a motion to bring Adam Glapiński, the President of the
Speaker A
National Bank of Poland, before the Tribunal of State. The charges concern the financing of the public deficit by the NBP and the politicization of this institution, which by law should be apolitical, and the Sejm will vote on this motion. There are many legal
Speaker A
conflicts surrounding what will happen next in this case. How do you assess this motion? I am asking MP Krzysztof Sztucki from the Development of Poland Association.
Speaker A
I assess it very critically. I am a member of the Constitutional Accountability Committee, so I participated in these proceedings and, together with my colleagues, submitted a minority motion to dismiss the case, because we believe it has no basis.
Speaker A
There are several charges there. Of course, the most important one concerns the financing of the budget, as you mentioned. In short, the point was that banks—commercial banks, but also state-owned banks—bought bonds that were issued to save the state's
Speaker A
financial situation in the context of COVID, and then these bonds were sold. The National Bank of Poland bought them . These were operations on the secondary market. This is called, economists call it quantitative easing or printing money.
Speaker A
Such operations were carried out by European banks. The Bank of England did it, the Federal Reserve in the United States did it. All states, all central banks that wanted to save the situation did such things, and this does not, it
Speaker A
does not violate the constitutional ban on financing the state budget deficit by the National Bank of Poland, because these operations were precisely on the secondary market, right? The National Bank did not buy bonds from the Minister of Finance, from the
Speaker A
government, so President Glapiński and the board of the National Bank of Poland were saving the Polish state at the time, not harming it. And believe me, if you were, I hope that if you were governing during the time of COVID
Speaker A
and if the President of the National Bank of Poland were an economist associated with your political camp, I hope they would do exactly the same. I hope they would do exactly the same. So the accusation against Adam Glapiński
Speaker A
is purely political in nature. And what is more, as you noted, the government majority is trying to ignore it. We will see the Constitutional Tribunal ruling K23/23 in the Sejm. I will add that it was published in the Journal of
Speaker A
Laws without any annotations and issued by a panel that raises no doubts. Nobody questioned it.
Speaker A
That is, the election of Julia Przyłębska as President of the Tribunal is questioned by some, but...
Speaker A
by the Constitutional Tribunal. You mean that it is questioned by some, that is what you have in mind. Well, we can obviously discuss that. However, if you go to the Sejm's online legal acts system and analyze the Act on the State
Speaker A
Tribunal, there is a reference next to those articles, and even the Sejm Chancellery employees, acting under the supervision of the Sejm Speaker, wrote that this provision is deemed inconsistent with...And now: allow me to explain to the listeners what the
Speaker A
problem is, that the Act on the State Tribunal assumes that the NBP President can be brought before the State Tribunal by a decision of an absolute, not a qualified, majority. At the same time, this act assumes that the NBP
Speaker A
President can be suspended from their duties even before a verdict is reached . This happens automatically. And now the problem is that in January, the Tribunal led by Julia Przyłębska— there were indeed no substitute judges on the panel—ruled that these
Speaker A
provisions are unconstitutional, that the NBP President cannot be suspended, and that bringing him before the Tribunal should require a qualified majority. And by law, because this verdict was published—it was before the Sejm resolution that questioned the legality of the Constitutional Tribunal
Speaker A
—it is in legal circulation. The only problem is that even if we acknowledge that the publication of this Tribunal decision essentially invalidates the provision allowing the Sejm to bring Glapiński before the Tribunal by an absolute majority, then there is no
Speaker A
provision left, and it is unclear by what majority he could actually be brought before the State Tribunal.
Speaker A
A few words, if I may. This verdict, of course, this verdict must be implemented. We immediately prepared a draft bill at the time, but it was, of course, not processed to amend the Act on the State Tribunal. One thing is
Speaker A
certain, it cannot be—it must be a majority higher than an absolute majority of votes, otherwise the bank's independence is violated. The current state is that there is no majority at all. But my question, well, I have spoken with lawyers and in my opinion,
Speaker A
this is a big problem. I know, but this is a very big problem. A regulation would have to be passed stating by what majority Adam Glapiński can be sent to the tribunal. But addressing Congresswoman Lenartowicz, because there is a recurring question here that
Speaker A
the ruling coalition is not answering clearly: will the motion to bring Adam Glapiński before the tribunal be put to a vote, and will the ruling coalition act on the assumption that this automatically means suspending Adam Glapiński from his duties as NBP
Speaker A
President? We shall see. The committee's motion has reached the Speaker, and the proceedings are now, as it were, in the hands of the Sejm Presidium. But I just wanted to respond , because the Congressman's claim that such an interpretation—speaking only
Speaker A
of an absolute majority—would lead to a violation of the National Bank's independence. Well, who is talking about independence here?
Speaker A
The Constitution. Yes, but in the context of President Glapiński, he is an example of complete political dependence. Complete political dependence in his actions. Now, Congressman, it was, because at numerous press conferences, Adam Glapiński spoke politically and attacked the
Speaker A
then-opposition. As it should be. Besides, this committee worked for many months, heard many witnesses, and ultimately reached that verdict in a vote. But how do you evaluate, for example, the misleading of the Minister of Finance before the elections? The
Speaker A
NBP President announced a payment of 6 billion zlotys of the bank's profit to the budget, even though internal forecasts indicated a loss of at least 17.8 billion, and ultimately the NBP closed the year with a loss of over 20
Speaker A
billion. And the announced payment was included in the draft budget for purely political, or rather, electoral reasons . I won't even mention all those stand-up routines performed by President Glapiński.
Speaker A
Congresswoman, allow me to explain to the listeners what happened. Quite simply, Mariusz Błaszczak asked Adam Glapiński to send information claiming there would be a profit, because Mariusz Błaszczak wanted military expenditures to look good on paper, so there wouldn't appear to be such a
Speaker A
large deficit regarding the draft budget for the following year. That is the knowledge, Mr. Editor.
Speaker A
Well, that is how it was. However, it is a fact that Adam Glapiński misled the Ministry of Finance. There was no profit; there was only a loss. I will give you the floor again. Now, Congressman Wieczorek.
Speaker A
I mean, firstly, we are discussing these formal legal issues. And this is unfortunately the legacy of Law and Justice's rule, namely concerns about whether the tribunal, the KRS, or the prosecutor's office are functioning well, so unfortunately you destroyed
Speaker A
this judicial system. I have no doubt about that, that today this will naturally be a problem. Second thing, the Chancellery of the Sejm and the Speaker will have to solve this problem , that is, ask for someone to finally
Speaker A
decide how we will vote on this motion, what majority is needed for it, and what status this ruling has. Exactly.
Speaker A
So that is again, But I would like to know what stance the ruling coalition has on this matter , because the motion was recommended, and the ruling coalition, as you and the audience can see, has been trying to act in accordance with the law for
Speaker A
three years and solve these difficult legal problems, and we will solve this one too. However, we are waiting for an opinion on this matter. I am only pointing out this substantive issue, because the independence of the central bank in every European Union country is
Speaker A
indeed a key matter. I had the impression here that there is truly no such independence, because we are talking about the issue of the bank's potential deficit or profit. Well, strangely enough, these bank profits appeared during the government's term.
Speaker A
No, but Congressman, I must protest here, because the profit or loss of the NBP very often depends on currency exchange rate issues. No, I absolutely agree with that. But has the NBP had any in the last three years,
Speaker A
but those were, after all, causes largely independent of me, and there are doubts about this matter. I also know a bit about how all this works, but if we are talking about political decisions, political matters, just look at what happened with the interest
Speaker A
rates, for example. Perhaps the reaction of the monetary bank, sir, yes , but the president also has a great influence on it there. No, let's not kid ourselves, when it comes to Law and Justice appointees, they did everything
Speaker A
exactly as Adam Glapiński wished; perhaps we wouldn't have had 18%, but the truth is that I was on the finance committee at the time and we discussed this, and perhaps we wouldn't have had 18%inflation if they had reacted.
Speaker A
Congressman, but there is another accusation here, I mean a doubt, that indeed this decision by Adam Glapiński regarding that operation with the banks , which Congressman Szczerba spoke about, was caused by a dramatic situation and action in truly very
Speaker A
difficult circumstances. There was a pandemic, an anti-COVID shield had to be implemented to save many companies from collapse and from laying off people, and that was the reason for the operation that Adam Glapiński carried out.
Speaker A
That was indeed the case, because the COVID situation was difficult, and there is no doubt about that. But are you going to bring Glapiński before the State Tribunal for that?
Speaker A
We will see how that operation was actually carried out, because I will also remind you, since we are talking about the actions of the National Bank of Poland, well, I was simply in shock.
Speaker A
When we were discussing the" Safe " program, President Glapiński comes out and says:" But we have 180 billion, there is no problem at all. "" We will sell some gold here, buy back the gold after a month, and we have 180 billion.
Speaker A
"Did you hear that, everyone? That is how a bank, an independent central bank , works. in any country whatsoever, but you did not include this accusation in that motion. It was happening just now. There are much earlier matters
Speaker A
there, because that committee had been working for a few years. However, this best illustrates how the bank, the National Bank of Poland, was used in current politics. So, the government creates a" safe "program, the president of the National Bank of Poland comes
Speaker A
out—which he shouldn't be doing at all—and says:" We will provide you with our money instead of this loan. "" To this day, there is nothing, just to be clear. " Albin Gajad, the chancellery.
Speaker A
Of course, this is a political matter. An attack on Governor Glapiński, who is a good governor of the National Bank of Poland. But this is how this coalition operates: it pursues and wants to punish political opponents, people who worked during the United
Speaker A
Right government, while having no successes of its own. October 15th is coming soon. A question for the congresswoman. What, what will you brag about? I suppose by that huge deficit, which is planned to be even higher for next year. There is a collapse in
Speaker A
healthcare and a massive budget deficit . Truly, there is no money for anything . Minister Domański, who went out before the elections saying what wonderful times these would be and how much money there is, now it turns out
Speaker A
that Minister Domański will likely be the gravedigger of public finances. But I would like to point out that the President vetoed the sugar tax act, the proceeds of which were supposed to go to healthcare. He vetoed the alcohol
Speaker A
excise tax, meaning cheap vodka is a priority rather than the budget, and he vetoed the sealing of the system regarding family foundations because Confederation politicians use them en masse. So if anyone complains about a high deficit, it also has something to
Speaker A
do with the President. That is around 8 billion, I believe. Exactly. What about the budget hole?
Speaker A
The hole, the budget hole. I mean, those were obviously bad laws, which is why they were vetoed. However, the budget hole, how much will the budget hole be next year? 282 billion higher than this year. So, during Donald
Speaker A
Tusk's administration, there was no money for anything. Donald Tusk only knows how to walk with a cup of coffee in front of the Belvedere and spout nonsense about the President's activities. We invite Mr. Donald Tusk, but to the Presidential Palace. He got
Speaker A
the address wrong. He got, he got the address wrong. But Donald Tusk is fleecing drivers. He is truly fleecing them, because he could have lowered— he could, he could—I didn't interrupt you—he could have lowered the excise tax, he could have lowered VAT without
Speaker A
any law from the President. But why didn't he do it? Because he is fleecing drivers. We see how fuel—the President signed the law, a regulation was issued lowering fuel prices—but we see how slowly, slowly, for a few days now, that price...has been rising,
Speaker A
so it's bad. I don't want to interrupt anyone brutally, but I would like to maintain order, because we are discussing the motion to bring Adam Glapiński before the State Tribunal.
Speaker A
On the agenda. As a comment to your statement, I want to add that during the time of Law and Justice, the Ministry of Finance in Mateusz Morawiecki's government prepared an analysis, the Public Sector Debt Management Strategy, where it clearly
Speaker A
emerged that following the decisions of the Law and Justice government, in connection with very low economic growth of 0.2%the public debt would grow rapidly. And that was an analysis by Mateusz Morawiecki's government, and the solution is either cutting spending
Speaker A
or raising taxes. So, the fact that this is the dynamic of this debt was already known during Donald Tusk's government—900 million a day too much , I believe. So, editor, I just want to point out that this document is
Speaker A
available online. Everyone can read it. The Civic Coalition was, but we heard what was said during the 2023 election campaign. What he was saying, the nonsense that Minister Domański was spouting, who, as I said, if things continue this way, will be
Speaker A
the gravedigger of public finances. Yes, but I would like to note that what is happening now was predicted and recognized as a consequence of the Law and Justice administration. Please, go ahead. MP Ćwik.
Speaker A
Before I move on to the matter of President Glapiński, two sentences for the minister. Mr. Minister, those tax laws were bad for those who were supposed to...to Alwin Gajadur from the President's Office, as I understand it.
Speaker A
They were bad for those who had to pay those taxes, but good for Poland, for the Polish budget. You say there is no money for anything, but there is money for horses in the office, so I'm glad, please don't make jokes here.
Speaker A
Moving on to the matter of President Gego, they were not there under all presidents 'terms. moving on to the matter minist it's wrong that there's no money for anything, Poland is in ruins, but there is for horses and 500, and 500, and 500 million was
Speaker A
for that lady, what's her name, the image specialist, what's her name, the image specialist, 500 million was supposed to be fo well, how much was it supposed to be for promotion, that image specialist, that brilliant one whom...I kindly ask
Speaker A
you. Really, Mr. MP, I kindly ask you. You cannot speak at the same time. I have an appeal to Mr. MP.
Speaker A
Let's leave the horses alone, I beg you . Let's move on. The issue of the bank's independence.
Speaker A
Please note that President Glapiński is not a brilliant economist, but a political friend of Jarosław Kaczyński since the very beginning of the Centre Agreement. He is his loyal comrade, and he was chosen as President of the NBP. Second matter. The issue of
Speaker A
financing the deficit. MP Szczuducki presented it quite in detail. It is unequivocal. In fact, the NBP financed the deficit through BGK, through state-controlled banks, but it did finance the deficit. Plus, there are a number of other charges. And now the
Speaker A
issue of that Constitutional Tribunal ruling. The Constitutional Tribunal repealed a provision of law that specified that the NBP President is dismissed by an absolute majority. But would you agree?
Speaker A
I mean, not dismissed, but brought before the State Tribunal. I'm sorry, Of course, I apologize. He is brought before the State Tribunal. But you would agree with me, Mr. Szczucki, that there is no provision in the current legal order that would specify today
Speaker A
what majority is required to bring the NBP President before the State Tribunal . If there is no such provision, then we apply general principles. And if there is no provision specifying a qualified majority, an absolute majority is applied. I will just remind
Speaker A
you by what majority the President of the National Bank of Poland is appointed by the Sejm. Do you know that majority? An absolute majority.
Speaker A
Yes, but Mr. Deputy, I still cannot find out from you in the ruling coalition what your plan is, because this vote is supposed to happen quickly . Do you assume that it will be an absolute majority and Adam Glapiński
Speaker A
will automatically be removed from managing the NBP, or not? This is a very simple question. In today's legal order in force in Poland, there is no provision that would specify a majority other than an absolute one. An absolute
Speaker A
majority should be applied. The representative of our caucus on the committee voted in favor of the motion.
Speaker A
But there is a second point. Is Adam Glapiński removed automatically, given that we have a Constitutional Tribunal ruling that repealed this provision?
Speaker A
That is unfortunately the problem, that the Constitutional Tribunal has also been politicized by Law and Justice and introduces—this particular decision was published— and it introduces legal chaos, and in my assessment, Adam Glapiński himself, if he cared about the safety and
Speaker A
stability of the Polish banking system in a situation where he is brought before the State Tribunal, should resign from his position himself.
Speaker A
Ladies and gentlemen, well, one sentence, okay, fine, but one sentence, because we are nearing the end of this topic. Firstly, it cannot be the case that the same majority that supports the government can suspend the President of the National Bank of
Speaker A
Poland. Ladies and gentlemen, let us move away from this specific person. Whoever it might be, whoever might be the president of the national bank.
Speaker A
Well yes. And precisely this majority should not influence the bank's independence. It should be a qualified majority, and this obviously follows from the ruling. And I will tell you this: if you vote for this with an absolute majority, or God forbid a
Speaker A
simple majority, because such concepts are appearing on your side, then the responsibility and the decision will fall on the State Tribunal, on its presiding judge. I believe—of course, we will see what they do, it is an independent institution—but I believe
Speaker A
that in such a situation, they should return such a motion to the Sejm as improperly voted on, as non-existent.
Speaker A
This complaint, this indictment—in quotes, because that is what it is formally called—but the regulations ...what Mr. Zbigniew Kapiński as presiding judge, as a lawyer, should do based on the regulations...I predict what should be done, but I told you,
Speaker A
Madam Editor, that it is independent, and I do not know, of course, what the President will do and what the State Tribunal will do.
Speaker A
I understand. Ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to ask you, and please provide short statements, because this radio portion of ours is coming to an end. Uh , I’m referring to the meeting between Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense
Speaker A
Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz and President Donald Trump. Let me briefly recall that this meeting took place in March, during a ceremony honoring an American soldier, and information about this meeting remained classified for a long time, until at some point Adam
Speaker A
Bielan announced it, saying that he had helped Deputy Prime Minister Kosiniak-Kamysz organize such a meeting and deserved credit for it, and that he certainly did not want to throw obstacles in the government's path regarding an American base. And a real
Speaker A
row ensued from that. In our" Dzieje się "podcast, we revealed that the content of this meeting was partly related to encouraging Kosiniak-Kamysz to change coalitions and tempting him with an offer to become prime minister.
Speaker A
We know that Mr. Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz informed Donald Tusk about everything. This remained a secret for a long time. We have two different versions here, because one version claims it concerned internal affairs and an attempt to change the coalition, while the second version
Speaker A
claims it concerned a base, a permanent American base. So it is unclear, but I also read that the American side is very unhappy that information about this meeting leaked at all. Although I must emphasize that the primary source
Speaker A
of this information was PiS MEP Adam Bielan. Mr. Deputy, I am addressing Krzysztof Szczucki. What is your opinion on this meeting? I mean, well, I hope that the gentlemen were talking about a permanent base for American troops in Poland. No, no, I cannot
Speaker A
imagine, Mr. Editor, and I would not want—even though it is obviously clear which side of the political spectrum I am on—for foreign leaders, even those that anyone on my side sympathizes with, to interfere in who holds power in Poland. And I hope that
Speaker A
this conversation did not concern that, that it concerned what is important to us. And look: it was a good thing that an opposition MEP, who has good relations within the American administration, organized such a meeting for a deputy prime minister—
Speaker A
even one from the complete opposite side of the political spectrum. And really, Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, if he wishes, should say what it was about , because we are operating on some conjectures, such as the suggestion from Donald Tusk, who said it concerned
Speaker A
internal matters. After all, he was not a participant in that meeting, and secondly, he has an interest in polarizing things, in introducing conflict to the political scene. He is certainly unhappy that his deputy in the government had such a meeting with
Speaker A
the help of an opposition MEP. Please, go ahead. Mr. Deputy Ćwik, Center Union. I mean, the fact that Law and Justice would like to offer the prime minister's position to the head of the PSL is nothing new, because they
Speaker A
have been doing that for three years. These proposals were made 3 years ago already. At that time, there were also suggestions that Szymon Hołownia could be the sole candidate in the presidential election from the right.
Speaker A
Therefore, I am not surprised that such proposals were made. However, the fact that Polish right-wing politicians are ready to conspire with another country, even our ally, about changing the government in Poland, reminds me of the darkest times of the First Polish
Speaker A
Republic, when magnates also conspired with Tsarina Catherine. Regarding who will govern in Poland? You have struck a very high note. I would like to point out that the United States is an ally of Poland. Could the same be said about
Speaker A
Russia? Yes, but after yesterday's reports about President Trump's conversation with Vladimir Putin regarding the lifting of sanctions and a fuel deal, fuel, as we heard in the news, it is very disturbing that Vladimir Putin wants to supply oil to the United States,
Speaker A
and no Polish politician should really be leading to such talks. Just as no Polish politician should be flying to Monaco, to some crook, and taking money . Mr. Member of Parliament, what was the process, these are really, I ask
Speaker A
for short responses because we will be able to expand on this thread, the same mechanisms that were exactly In the non-radio part on YouTube. I have a question for Alwin Gajadur from the President's Office, because it goes like this: on one hand, we hear that no
Speaker A
, absolutely there was no urging of Kosiniak-Kamysz to change the coalition , but I am looking at the ticker on Telewizja Republika. Michał Rachoń, the brother of Nikodem Rachoń, who took part in this meeting, it is written:" Americans want a change of
Speaker A
Prime Minister. " Madam Editor, Telewizja Republika is spreading disinformation. Instead of speculation about Donald Trump's alleged ultimatum regarding a change of government in Poland, let's look at the facts. President Karol Nawrocki spoke with President Trump in September 2025 about a permanent US
Speaker A
military base in our country. For several months, nothing happened on this topic because the Ministry of Defense and the government were doing nothing. The Office repeatedly asked about the progress of the work. There was silence, and only in the spring,
Speaker A
when the meeting between Deputy Prime Minister Kosiniak-Kamysz and President Trump took place, did this work begin, meaning only then did the Ministry of Defense start to work, because the fact that there is to be a base was an
Speaker A
announcement, well, that's one thing, but it still needs to be realized. There must be talks about infrastructure, finances, broadly understood logistics, and only in the spring, the floor is yours on this matter. he said there would be such a
Speaker A
base, so after this meeting, the work really started; we still haven't found out whether Republika is spreading disinformation about the Americans wanting a change of Prime Minister or not, Mr. Alwin Gaj does not want to Does he not want to take a position?
Speaker A
Please go ahead. Wieczorek, one thing: diplomacy prefers silence. I approach what MEP Bielan says on this matter with great distance, because he is famous for wanting to strengthen his position on the right side, so I have the impression that it was not exactly
Speaker A
as Mr. Bielan presents it. The second thing is, of course, that only Prime Minister Kosiniak-Kamysz and President Trump know what they talked about, and our speculations here make absolutely no sense in this regard. I cannot imagine a situation where foreign
Speaker A
powers, even our friends, would influence how policy looks in our country. And I think we all agree with that, President Trump has already boasted that he influenced the presidential election.
Speaker A
Exactly, so we all agree with that, and we must fight against it. However, this element regarding the agreement with Putin today is, I think, very disturbing—let's put a period here, because we will return to this thread.
Speaker A
Ms. MP, two sentences literally to finish, because we have to wrap up. We are actually seeing disinformation being practiced, because when we listen to Mr. Bielan, or even the President's Office, or Republica, we have a festival of disinformation, a
Speaker A
propaganda one, very crudely cut. Actually, Prime Minister Kosiniak-Kamysz said that the conversation concerned the presence of American troops in Poland and did not even concern bases, because there was no talk of that then. And we can assume that such suggestions regarding
Speaker A
interfering in internal Polish politics could have taken place, because certain organizers had such intentions in this matter, about which he perhaps was not initially aware.
Speaker A
Ladies and gentlemen, I must interrupt the MP, because our radio time has already ended. We say goodbye to the listeners of Tok FM radio. We invite you to continue the discussion on the YouTube platform. The debaters were Gabriela Lenartowicz, Civic Coalition;
Speaker A
Krzysztof Szczucki, Development Plus; Alwin Gajadhur. President's Office. Sławomir Ćwik, Center Union. Dariusz Wieczorek, New Left; Dominika Wielowiejska, see you later. You are welcome.
Speaker A
Sunday can also be. We invite you to the YouTube platform. And now, TOK FM news. And we are moving on to the non-radio part, and Mr. Alwin Gajadhur wanted to speak on this matter . Actually, we really saw the statement
Speaker A
, we heard, we saw the statement by Donald Tusk, let me remind you, to one of the stations, when he was walking at a red light near the Belvedere. He was speaking, well, that's how it was, Mr.
Speaker A
Editor, after all, we saw it. He was speaking about the meeting of Prime Minister Kosiniak-Kamysz with President Donald Trump. But it was Prime Minister Kosiniak-Kamysz, according to Donald Tusk's words, who informed him about this meeting. However, it surprises me
Speaker A
I am surprised by the statements of the Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, who knows nothing about this. So the question is, does Donald Tusk no longer trust his Deputy Prime Minister and is cutting him off from any information? Well, because if
Speaker A
Deputy Prime Minister Kosiniak-Kamysz informed Prime Minister Tusk, then I understand that Prime Minister Tusk should have also informed the Foreign Minister, but perhaps he was sidelined.
Speaker A
I will share some of my information about what happened there. The essence of the matter really came down to the fact that Deputy Prime Minister Sikorski only knew about the content of this meeting the moment PiS MEP Adam
Speaker A
Bielan decided to disclose it. That information, and because part of the government—well, probably the whole government—was outraged that attempts were made at the White House to change the coalition in Poland, that is why Radosław Sikorski posted such a
Speaker A
statement, addressing Nikodem Rachoń, saying that since such a meeting took place, procedures require that Nikodem Rachoń, as one of the organizers of this meeting, should prepare a memo.
Speaker A
The Deputy Prime Minister should prepare a memo. Prepare a memo and send it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The memo is always by the lowest-ranking person.
Speaker A
He was the lowest-ranking person at the meeting and should prepare a memo and pass it to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, but that is a role for the staff. If the President's Office organizes a meeting, then the
Speaker A
President's Office should provide information on the subject. Congresswoman, I’m afraid your voice wasn’t heard because I just said that in such situations, the memo is prepared by the lowest-ranking person participating in the conversation.
Speaker A
Undoubtedly, that was Nikodem Rachoń, not the Deputy Prime Minister. Also, I recommend you have a permanent show on TV Republika, because you are a real world champion. But I am not sending you to Polish Television. You are sending others, twisting, and
Speaker A
manipulating the facts. I would like to lower the emotions a little, everyone. I rely on facts. I don’t know what you are relying on. One thing is certain in this matter, ladies and gentlemen: when it comes to politics,
Speaker A
when it comes to foreign policy, we really must speak with one voice. There really must be an unambiguous position on the part of the government and the president, so this cooperation is absolutely required here. Because if we have information of this type,
Speaker A
concerning even this meeting, appearing in such a way in the public eye, then I am not surprised by the frustration on the part of the American administration , which wonders today:" Why should we talk to these Poles if they are...We
Speaker A
discuss serious matters, they drag everything out into the open, and they even drag our president into who knows what kind of things. "So I draw attention to that, because here I agree with the minister. All these memos and
Speaker A
so on should absolutely exist, because the President’s Office must also know about such matters. The Prime Minister must know, the Minister of Foreign Affairs must know. So there is no doubt about that. But let's not clarify these things in the studio. These things
Speaker A
should be clarified between the administration in Poland. But I still have a question for Mr. Ćwik, because the accusations from Law and Justice are—as was mentioned during our discussion—that the government is working very reluctantly on the plans for an American base in Poland, that
Speaker A
for many months nothing happened in this matter, and that, truthfully, there is a lack of dynamics regarding the government's work on this issue.
Speaker A
The facts in this matter are that since May we have been waiting for the arrival of 5,000 American soldiers as part of a rotation, which was initially blocked by the Donald Trump administration. Later, in May, Donald Trump seemed to confirm that these
Speaker A
soldiers would arrive. We have been waiting for half a year, and they are still not here. That is a fact. As for the work on the base, if we haven't established what kind of base it is and where it should be located, we aren't
Speaker A
going to pour the foundations. And the work related to this is currently underway. And I actually agree with Minister Wieczorek here, these things require silence. These things are not settled in television or radio studios, they should be handled in the quiet of
Speaker A
an office. What MEP Bielan did by revealing information about a meeting that had not been disclosed by the American administration—neither Donald Trump nor Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, Deputy Prime Minister of the Polish government, posted photos with the President of the United States
Speaker A
on social media. If the intention had been to disclose this information, those photos would have been there. And this was, of course, irresponsible on the part of Mr. Adam Bielan. And to Minister Gajotchur, regarding those basics of speaking. The MP said that
Speaker A
the behavior was pathetic. That's true. However, one should not label someone as pathetic. One describes the behavior, not the person. You didn't say that very clearly, please recall, you said something else, but I understand you are retracting...we are talking about
Speaker A
the conversation in the studio, so the MP's behavior was pathetic. Well You said that she is pathetic, and please get that into your head, learn how not to speak.
Speaker A
A heartfelt appeal that we really avoid these personal remarks. I think the viewers and listeners agree . Ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to add to this, that I am not referring to the behavior, because there is nothing to refer to, but I
Speaker A
would just like to emphasize that no later than yesterday or the day before, Paweł Zalewski, the Deputy Minister who heads the team negotiating the American bases in Poland, gave an extensive interview to RMF FM, where he reports step by step on all the work
Speaker A
related to preparing the base. The decision from the American side is expected to be made at the turn of the year, at the latest by the beginning of next year, because it also depends on expectations. Those are generally known
Speaker A
, but they are being negotiated in detail and that work is being carried out constantly. Dozens of meetings have been held on this matter. And these are tasks, um, at an executive and detailed level. These are large sums of money
Speaker A
from the, um, labor budget. These are also large costs on the, um, American side. And as Congressman Ćwik said, such things are not announced on social media.
Speaker A
Ladies and gentlemen, just one sentence , please. God willing, let it be so, because we truly need this base, regardless of who is governing in Poland. However, you cannot be surprised that as the opposition we have concerns, because we remember the
Speaker A
first Tusk government, Radzikowo, and everything that happened around it. And we really want to be sure—and it's not even about some details, because they shouldn't be displayed publicly, that's true—but we want to be sure that the government is doing everything
Speaker A
so that what President Nawrocki negotiated with President Trump, that is, the fact of this base in Poland, which President Trump publicly confirmed, becomes a reality, right?
Speaker A
Because it is the government that must deliver this matter from the logistical , financial, and detailed side, and that is all we expect. We have the right, as the opposition, to be sure that you are working on it, and not
Speaker A
bombing this issue due to your antipathy, due to your antipathy to... it's hard with trust. A detailed answer , and these works are ongoing, because the Americans also have to express their expectations, and it's not that ...but you are disinforming, because
Speaker A
you are casting doubt on whether the government is working on it and whether it is not actually boycotting this base . The government and working—in your version, these are very often complete opposites. Ladies and gentlemen, we are already entering the level of a certain
Speaker A
political rhetoric. A TikTok level, both of you. Gentlemen. Donald Tusk, so it's hard to be surprised by a different message; we know how Don Tusk governs.
Speaker A
I would very much like to ask you, ladies and gentlemen, for two sentences on the TVN matter.
Speaker A
Go ahead, please. Regarding the TVN matter, because perhaps let's tell our viewers and listeners that a transaction has finally taken place, which consisted of the Warner Bros. Discovery group being acquired by another American concern, Paramount Skydance. This is a concern
Speaker A
belonging to the Ellison family, friends of Donald Trump. And in connection with the fact that in this situation, TVN, a Polish station with a terrestrial license, is owned by a new American concern, perhaps quite sudden changes will occur there. They are
Speaker A
being announced. I saw posts from Law and Justice politicians, other politicians, and people from the Law and Justice circle that soon, right here, I don't know, Dorota Kania or Danuta Cholecka will be running TVN. Um , Adam Bielan of course claims that
Speaker A
nothing of the sort will happen, that simply TVN television will be reformatted in the style of, um, Polsat , and that that is all that will happen . But I hear in the right-wing media about this list of journalists who are
Speaker A
allegedly supposed to be fired. These are, of course, the leading TVN journalists. And the question, of course, goes to you, because the Ministry of State Assets has now announced that the investor must inform the ministry of this change, and
Speaker A
theoretically, a verification procedure is being initiated to see if these changes pose a threat. To public order and the security of Poland. Although it is difficult to find that in such a situation here. I would like to remind
Speaker A
you that although TVN was placed on the list by a regulation from Prime Minister Donald Tusk—along with Polsat, by the way—on the list of such specific investments, we do not have a situation (for now, perhaps it will be in the future) of a sale of TVN
Speaker A
, because then the Polish government would indeed have the right of veto, but we are dealing with a change of ownership, and here the government's room for maneuver is much smaller. I don't know if you agree with this
Speaker A
description of the situation I have presented, but it is worth knowing what we are discussing. My question to Mr.
Speaker A
Wieczorek. Do you consider these changes in the ownership of TVN television to be a threat? I mean, first of all, these are changes concerning a private company, so we don't have much influence over it either. I remember those discussions in
Speaker A
the government regarding these strategic institutions, or in this case TVN and Polsat, and the intention there was rather that they should not fall into, for example, Russian hands. Uh, therefore, this really needs to be verified. However, uh, we will see what
Speaker A
happens, uh, next. The new owner will likely be making decisions on this matter. Uh, before the program, I was telling my colleagues that there is already, uh, a page on the internet called" Standing with TVN "and whether they are signing up or not. They said
Speaker A
no. I would gladly sign up because I would prefer TVN the way it is. However , we will see how it really turns out.
Speaker A
I would also like to reassure everyone, because it is characteristic of the right side that whenever something happens, they scare people, saying you will all lose your jobs. That someone else, someone else will be working here . Well, I assume that the new owner
Speaker A
wants to approach this professionally, so they will also professionally evaluate the level of journalism and the journalists, and I do not foresee any major changes in this regard. This question goes to Mr. Szczudcki. Because we hear that the circle of Law and
Speaker A
Justice, the president's entourage, is pressuring the MAGA movement, the entourage of President Trump, to persuade the Lison brothers to change the profile of TVN before the elections , in particular in 2027, to help the right wing win the election. How do you
Speaker A
respond to such information? Madam editor, I was on TVN yesterday, even on a program. Nothing has changed for now, everything is as it was before . Uh, but in all seriousness, I think that, of course, sometimes I like the
Speaker A
editorial line of this or that station, and other times I don't, but politicians should be the last people to have any influence on media policy.
Speaker A
This market in Poland has changed. I don't know if one can say there is a balance. Probably not, but it is certainly the case that various political forces have the opportunity to convey their ideas, and whether TVN should be one way or another will
Speaker A
likely be decided by market conditions. I mean, this company was acquired by businessmen, people who want to make money from it, and honestly, I don't think TVN will suddenly become another Republika, or Telewizja wPolsce24, or a channel associated in some way with the
Speaker A
right side of the political spectrum. Will it be the same as it has been so far? That's also unclear, maybe there will be some changes, but as a politician, I only want to have as much to do with the media as not minding
Speaker A
being invited to a program from time to time. However, I absolutely do not want to comment on who should host these programs or who should be on the television's board of directors.
Speaker A
But can you truly say that the circle around Law and Justice and the president is not lobbying on this matter at all? Because I hear about Jacek Kurski, who travels to see the Ellisons. Allegedly, he boasts about his Jewish roots, citing his brother's
Speaker A
book. There can be different perceptions on this subject. Certainly, in the Development Plus circle, there is no such lobbying, and I haven't heard us discuss the topic of TVN at all, other than who should go to an upcoming
Speaker A
program. Honestly, I hope that all political forces...I wouldn't want anyone to dictate the board of Republika, wPolsce24, just as I wouldn't for TOK FM, TVN, Radio Zet, or any other station, other than the owners, besides those to whom, of
Speaker A
course, the National Broadcasting Council belongs, which should stand... Go ahead, Madam Deputy, please. Civic Coalition: we should certainly look at this from the perspective of media independence, and especially that of journalists.
Speaker A
But surely you admit that the Ministry of State Assets has limited options to ...
Speaker A
Limited options because it is a merger and not a divestment, and here one seeks solutions, potentially legal ones , but rather with the goal of not blocking a merger, but of preventing a political faction from taking over. Uhh
Speaker A
, because there is a presumption—and even lobbying in that direction is admitted—that the merger was carried out for that very purpose. We, as the public and politicians, those of us who support democracy, should certainly safeguard independence. Congresswoman, the situation here is that your fellow
Speaker A
party member Roman Giertych posted something on X, from which one could gather that, in principle, the Polish government could block a change in TVN's management. Well, I have my doubts about that, but I understand that you also doubt the words of your
Speaker A
colleague. I mean, I don't think it's possible to block the selection of management. This is a television station, it is a private station, but I certainly wouldn't want—well, it is said to be a private entity that wants to make
Speaker A
money, and there will be professionalization here. Well, professionalization might look like it does at Republika. There are also very professional propagandists there, whom one cannot call journalists, working in other media. Congresswoman, it is not your role to define who is a journalist
Speaker A
. This is precisely that political influence on the media. You only recognize media freedom in one direction, but you interrupted me.
Speaker A
Well, Congresswoman, sometimes one must intervene; it is a state of necessity. When one hears such things— Congresswoman, we are finishing this.
Speaker A
Please answer me. I define a journalist using a linguistic interpretation. In the common view, a journalist is a professional person who conveys information, seeks opinions from all sides, and tries to be objective. If they present their own view, they
Speaker A
clearly and openly state that it is their view. This is the common definition of journalism in a democracy . And in that understanding of the definition, those employees of those media outlets are not journalists.
Speaker A
Ladies and gentlemen, Congressman, Congressman, the problem here also lies in the fact, among other things, that some people who work in the media, whether in Polska 24 or Republika, want to call themselves journalists, yet just a moment ago they were
Speaker A
spokespeople for President Nawrocki. You can't do that. It is impossible to combine the role of a presidential campaign spokesperson with journalistic work. As for a journalist of Republika, we have the right to evaluate that such a phenomenon means that someone is not
Speaker A
a journalist, or has shown they were not a journalist in that sense. I understand, I am just pointing out to you that journalistic standards—I can say this on my own behalf and for my company—exclude a situation where one
Speaker A
is simultaneously a presidential spokesperson and appears on air as a journalist. Or a Minister of Justice fleeing abroad from the justice system, who was given the title Alwin Gajad by the President's Office? Because here, indeed, as I said, we keep hearing
Speaker A
reports—and in this context, Nikodem Rachoń is mentioned—of such pressure on the Ellison family to change TVN, to fire some journalists—would you deny that?
Speaker A
I mean, Editor, I do not want to address any speculations, any rumors, any conjectures. Let us wait for the situation to develop. As Congressman Wieczorek said, this is a private company, but there is some stirring up of emotions here, some scaremongering.
Speaker A
But no, no. Congresswoman, I will address the words of the congresswoman who is so much in favor of media independence. Where were you then? When TVP was being taken over by force? Did you protest then too? Well, somehow I
Speaker A
didn't hear you protesting when Donald Tusk forcibly took over TVP, and I understand that everything there suits you just fine. I understand that everything there is supposedly objective. No, no, I...The Minister said:" Donald... "Tusk. Congresswo...
Speaker A
please, Congresswoman, please let me speak. On Telewizja Republika, Tomasz Sakiewicz is broadcasting from the United States, saying that the Ellisons are already preparing to fire a specific number—and he lists them by name—of journalists. Who will be fired by Republika, since you just said
Speaker A
a moment ago that the ruling coalition is fueling emotions? Well, I’m pointing out to you that, at this moment, emotions are being fueled by Telewizja Republika, which is institutionally linked to Law and Justice. I said I do not want to
Speaker A
address gossip, suggestions, or assumptions. Let's wait, as Congressman Wieczorek said, it is a private company . Let's wait and see what happens.
Speaker A
Congressman, I just want to say that PiS MPs have been announcing on their social media—you can check—for several months what they will do with TVN journalists and who will take their place.
Speaker A
That is correct. Congressman Cikunia. I wonder if Minister Gajchur has a portrait of Donald Tusk in his office, because you keep saying" Donald Tusk, Donald Tusk, "I don't know what you're on about. Donald Tusk is a pest who
Speaker A
harms Poland, he is a pest, perhaps you have his portrait too. However, regarding the situation with TVN and the acquisition of the group by another , the Discovery group, I admit: I am starting to get a bit worried when I
Speaker A
hear these announcements from right-wing politicians, backed by the fact that their representatives, emissaries, are going to the new owner to seize a commercial station, which is also a news station in Poland, and thereby influence election results.
Speaker A
When I connect this with that statement by MEP Bielan regarding a meeting with the President of the United States, urging him to influence a change of government in Poland. When I combine this with the statement by President Trump, who said that he decided who
Speaker A
would become president in Poland, then I really start to worry that Polish politicians, or at least a part of them on the right, want to rely on a foreign power—even a friendly one, but still a foreign power—and billionaires who control media power.
Speaker A
and use that to seize power in Poland. Ladies and gentlemen, this is nothing other than creating a banana republic.
Speaker A
This is a loss of independence for Poland. These are strong words, but that is what it boils down to. Because if we create a loophole for foreign administration or foreign capital to influence the political situation in Poland or election results, that is
Speaker A
precisely an interference in the Polish national interest. I also understand that someone like President Sakiewicz or TV Republika perhaps should be worried, because if TVN were to actually adopt Republika’s narrative line, then Republika would disappear from the market entirely. Unless they
Speaker A
all move over to Wiertnicza Street, which is what they are counting on. Yes , but for Poland, that would truly be terrible, and on the other hand, for the Agora Group, perhaps it is time to create a television station. One
Speaker A
sentence, Minister. To finish, it might sound a bit perverse, but have more faith, because I believe in Polish women and men; regardless of how much it worries me, for instance, we will still make wise choices in line with
Speaker A
our own...Well, they have a guarantee and an independence commission has been appointed. Unfortunately, that principle is not in the agreement negotiated between the United States and Paramount in the case of TVN, so I am simply speaking on behalf of the
Speaker A
journalistic community and the Journalists' Society, which is calling for such a commission to be established after all. That is exactly what I was talking about, that we should deal with .
Speaker A
One sentence in response to MP Sławomir Ćwik, the current deputy minister. If you dream so much about a portrait of Donald Tusk, I will get one for you. You can hang it in your office , and maybe then you’ll even become a
Speaker A
minister. Maybe you’ll be appreciated , you will be the deputy minister for the entire collection of these portraits in the Presidential Palace.
Speaker A
He wants it. Ladies and gentlemen, with this optimistic note regarding who will hang up Donald Tusk, we are ending our discussion, alright? Okay.
Speaker A
Gabriela Lenartowicz, Civic Coalition. Krzysztof Sztucki, Development Plus. Alwita Gajadur, Presidential Chancellery. Sławomir Ćwik, Center Union, and Dariusz Wieczorek, New Left. Thank you very much.
Speaker A
Dominika Wielowiejska. I bid you farewell. I invite you to my YouTube channel for political commentary. Until next time and see you soon.
Speaker A
You can listen to the full broadcast on the Tok FM mobile app and in the archive at tokfm.pl. Slash.
Topics:Digital Services Actschool violence PolandAdam GlapińskiState TribunalPolish politicsDonald Tuskcensorship debateonline safetypolitical accusationsRadio TOK FM
