The dispute over the EU SAFE instrument has become more than a debate on defence funding. After the President's veto against the bill implementing the program, the pro-German government of Tusk announces uncovering an alternate way to scope for a billion-dollar debt from the EU. This, however, means a serious constitutional conflict and a violation of the law. In turn, there are severe consequences.
Will Tusk win in pushing the EU's defence debt beyond the law? SAFE, or the mechanics of EU loans for arms spending, for Poland possibly means respective twelve billion euros of support. The government argues that this is an chance to accelerate the modernization of the army and strengthen security. Critics, however, rise not only economical arguments, but above all legal arguments – indicating that the acceptance of specified a commitment threatens Polish independence. Moreover, this programme, which results in a crucial burden on the state budget, should be adopted by law and with the approval of the President.
That's the point. The Constitution provides that global agreements causing crucial financial burdens on states require ratification preceded by the Act. If SAFE is treated as such, bypassing parliament and signing the president may be considered a violation of the law.
However, the government signals the anticipation of utilizing existing financial mechanisms, specified as the Armed Forces Support Fund, and decisions taken at Council of Ministers level. specified a manoeuvre could let the method implementation of the programme despite political blockade. The problem is that it does not remove fundamental doubts: whether the State can make multi-annual global commitments without a full statutory procedure.
In practice, this means that even if the government manages to activate SAFE, the substance will almost surely fall into the way of legal dispute. It is possible to complain to the Constitutional Court, to intensify the conflict between the government and the President, and to further polarise the political scene. In the utmost variant, there will besides be a question of constitutional and criminal work of those who make outright decisions.
International effects are besides important. A State which implements its obligations under dispute over their legality may lose credibility in the eyes of its partners. This is peculiarly crucial for projects financed by debt and spread over decades.
Therefore, it is not only crucial that SAFE can be implemented through a ‘technical’ path. Rather, the question is whether political determination justifies the creation of a precedent in which specified large financial commitments arise at the border of the Constitution. The answer to this question depends not only on the future of 1 programme, but besides on the standard of functioning of the regulation of law in Poland.
Unfortunately, everything points to Tusk being so determined to incapacitate Poland with this debt that he is even ready to break the law.
We besides recommend: Zabrze withdrew the anti-immigrant resolution. Against the background of the financial blackmail of Eurokołchozu