The Tusk government's decision to join the EU SAFE programme is becoming increasingly emotional. Statements Minister of abroad Affairs Radosław Sikorski suggests that our country will adopt adverse solutions related to this instrument, even despite the President's opposition. This attitude raises serious questions about the attitude of the current power to the national legal order, as well as the direction in which the government wants to lead the state – this is the way of a deep submission to the Brussels decisions and the conditionality mechanism.
SAFE (Security Action for Europe) is an EU financial instrument designed to make associate States' defence capabilities. The programme provides for the mobilisation of up to EUR 150 billion in the form of long-term preferential loans to EU countries for the acquisition of military equipment and the improvement of defence industry. The Warsaw Government is seeking the largest part of this pool – around EUR 43.7 billion. However, it is worth remembering that these are not grants, but loans that will be repaid for many years. This means further financial commitments by the countries that will in practice impose on future generations of taxpayers.
An crucial component of the programme is besides the fact that a crucial proportion of the resources are intended to go to the European arms industry. The programme is intended to strengthen production in the EU, not purchases outside the EU. In practice, this could mean preferring circumstantial suppliers and limiting the freedom of States to choose partners.
However, the most controversial is the alleged conditionality mechanism. This means linking access to measures to the European Commission's assessment of how money is spent and the compatibility of the state's actions with EU regulations.
Supporters of the SAFE programme shall present the accompanying conditionality as a mechanics solely linked to financial control. Critics indicate that in practice it can become another tool of political pressure. In fresh years Poland has already experienced a situation where EU funds have been dependent on policy assessments formulated by EU institutions. In short, further tranches of money will be paid to Poland if Brussels considers that the government is obedient to it, introduces partnerships, expands abortion, adopts the euro.
In this way, there is simply a strong hazard that decisions on key defence investments may depend on maintaining faithful political relations with Brussels. These, in turn, warrant only the continuation of the Tusk coalition in Warsaw. The KPO case has already shown what the Brussels decision-makers care about.
Controversy besides deepens the way the law implementing the programme in Poland is passed. In the Polish constitutional system, the president plays an crucial function in the legislative process and has the right to veto the bill if he considers it to be detrimental to the state. However, the statements of any representatives of the government – including Radosław Sikorski – suggesting that Poland will join SAFE regardless of the decision of the head of state, are a disturbing signal. In practice, this would mean attempting to circumvent constitutional mechanisms or exert political force on the President.
Such actions undermine the fundamental rule of the regulation of law that public authorities operate within the limits and on the basis of the law. If the government begins to treat constitutional procedures as an obstacle to circumvention alternatively than as part of a strategy of government balance, this raises serious doubts about democratic standards.
The SAFE case falls within the broader context of the policy pursued by the Donald Tusk government. In many areas, there is simply a clear tendency to affect Poland in the next EU centralist initiatives as shortly as possible, frequently without a broad public debate. In the case of SAFE, this applies not only to finance, but besides to industrial policy and part of the decisions on arms purchases. In the long term, this leads to a simplification of strategical state autonomy in the area of security.
If the government actually tries to accept SAFE despite the President's opposition or without a full public debate, it will be a dangerous precedent. It would mean that constitutional mechanisms and the will of a large part of society can be ignored in the name of "European integration". In the regulation of law, specified an approach should not take place, whether it is simply a policy towards the EU or any another area of functioning of the State. due to the fact that it is nothing another than falling into a cloud of autocraticism or totalitarianism.
We besides recommend: Violence against women is expanding in Europe. The cause, of course, of immigrants