Polish parliament speaker says confidence vote should be next week
Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on Monday he would call for a parliamentary vote of confidence in his coalition government, after his candidate, Rafal Trzaskowski, lost a presidential election on Sunday.
"We are hearing information that it should be soon. I convinced the Prime Minister that we should wait with this for a while," Holownia told journalists.
"I suggested to the Prime Minister that the motion be submitted this week so that we can discuss it at an additional session on Tuesday."
Nationalist opposition candidate Karol Nawrocki narrowly won Poland's presidential election, delivering a blow to the centrist government's efforts to cement Warsaw's pro-European orientation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves could unlock £30bn with defence loophole in fiscal rules
Rachel Reeves could give herself an extra £30bn headroom next year if she follows Gordon Brown's advice to take increased defence spending outside the fiscal rules. The former prime minister said the Chancellor should follow Germany and declare that 'exceptional' increases in defence spending can be paid for by borrowing more. This is currently banned under Ms Reeves's fiscal rules, which say borrowing should never pay for day-to-day spending, and that debt should fall as a share of the economy by 2030. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says the defence spending change could give the Government another £30bn next year. However, the economic think tank warned it would increase borrowing costs for households with mortgages. It comes as Ms Reeves comes under huge pressure to figure out how to fill a £50bn hole in the public finances, with tax rises seemingly increasingly likely. Mr Brown told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that he would like the Chancellor to scrap the two-child benefit cap, raising the money to do so by increasing taxes on the gambling industry. He said another option was to treat a commitment to ramping up defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP by the 2030s as 'exceptional' and as 'outside the fiscal rules'. 'When you come to the fiscal position, there is one thing that has happened over the last few months which has been quite unprecedented: to spend 5 per cent on defence expenditure as we want to spend by 2030,' said the former prime minister. 'But this is a Nato initiative, this is a European initiative, we should be doing this jointly, we should have either jointly issued bonds or a Nato defence fund and we should be sharing the cost across the Continent. 'That should be regarded as something extraordinary and exceptional, outside the fiscal rules and that would create the kind of headroom that Rachel Reeves needs.' Ben Zaranko, associate director of the IFS, said that if defence spending increased from 2.5 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent, this would be equivalent to around £30bn. He said: 'If the UK needs to spend a lot more on defence, and it needs to do so quickly, there could be a case for borrowing more in the short term to make that happen, and to smooth the path towards the new higher spending equilibrium. 'Some sort of one-off joint bond issuance with Europe or Nato could be part of that. 'But that extra borrowing wouldn't be free: we would expect it to push up borrowing costs for the Government and households with mortgages. 'And, importantly, more borrowing cannot be a permanent solution. Ultimately, if we need to spend more on defence on a recurring, permanent basis, we will need to either raise more in tax or spend less on something else.'
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The unintended consequences of the Online Safety Act
George Billinge says that many age assurance technologies delete their personal data after age has been confirmed, while some providers of virtual private networks (VPNs) sell their data to brokers (Everything the right – and the left – are getting wrong about the Online Safety Act, 1 August). But there is a key difference: we can choose which VPN to use, but the choice of which age assurance technology to use is with the platform. When a platform I use to talk to my friends insisted I verify my age, I wasn't given a choice about which age verification service would get my driving licence. I was expected to trust that the platform had made a good decision with my best interests at heart. That's a pretty big ask. Instead, I elected to sign up for a VPN. I then paid for it with a payment processor of my choice, one with a proven security record. I spent several days considering and comparing the numerous options before selecting one that doesn't keep any data – with audits and court successes to prove it. At every step of the process, I was able to choose who I was trusting with my personal data. I might consider going through the age verification process later – when I get the choice about which service to show my driving licence to. Assuming, of course, that requiring age verification for a group of adults in their 40s to share pet photos and complain about work is ultimately deemed to be within the scope of the legislation. Age verification on porn sites sounds reasonable, but it seems that many platforms are using the Online Safety Act as an excuse to conduct a data grab on a massive scale. We should be wary about who is asking for our ID when the spirit of the law is being so blatantly TrerythSt Austell, Cornwall George Billinge's focus on tech companies such as Facebook unfortunately echoes the flawed thinking behind the Online Safety Act itself. While the act tries to distinguish between large tech companies and smaller independent sites, most of the legislation was only written with Meta and their like in mind. In practice, this means that any site that contains user-submitted content, be that a volunteer-run hobbyist forum or a recipe blog with a comment section, is subject to the same rules (and same fines) as Facebook or X. However, unlike these companies, these smaller sites do not have the teams of lawyers to pore over Ofcom's 1,700-plus pages of guidance, and instead are choosing to either block UK visitors or shut down entirely. Rather than curtailing the power of big tech, as Billinge suggests, the Online Safety Act only entrenches their power further, by making it impossible for anyone else to CoatesBristol
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why are proposals for China's super-embassy in London so contentious?
Ministers have asked China to explain redacted designs for a 'super-embassy' in London as they prepare for a final decision on the controversial building. What's at stake and why are the proposals so contentious? If the building goes ahead it would be the biggest embassy in Europe, in the heart of the city and near the Tower of London. The 20,000 sq metre (5 acre) site, which was once home to the Royal Mint, was bought by China for £225m in 2018. Beijing commissioned David Chipperfield, one of Britain's most respected architects, to design the new embassy and cultural centre for the site. Dissidents fear it will be used as a centre to spy on, harass and possibly detain opponents of the Chinese government. They point to how in 2022, a Hong Kong pro-democracy protester was dragged into the grounds of the Chinese consulate and then beaten. Local residents are concerned the new embassy will be a magnet for protests and a potential security risk. China hawks and some of Britain's allies, notably the US, warn that it also poses an espionage risk because of its close proximity to London's financial district. In June the White House voiced 'deep concern' about the new embassy and noted its closeness to the London office of several US banks. The Home Office and Foreign Office have asked for the construction of a 'hard perimeter' around the site to address public and safety concerns. The site used to house trading floors that were wired up to other financial institutions. It is also close to the City's telephone exchange. Allowing China to build on the site would be an invitation to espionage, according to the Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith. The Metropolitan police have warned the building would attract protests that would impede traffic and require extra policing. China's initial planning application was rejected by the local Tower Hamlets council in 2022 over safety and security concerns and fears about the impact on tourism. In August 2024, just after Labour came to power, China resubmitted the same application. The application came up in Keir Starmer's first phone call with China's president, Xi Jinping, that same month. In October the housing secretary, Angela Rayner, who has responsibility for planning matters, 'called in' the application, moving it from local to central government to decide on its merits. A decision on the application is due by 9 September. As part of the process Rayner has asked China to un-redact parts of the plans that had been 'greyed out' in the application. The redacted plans submitted include a basement area with rooms of no identifiable use. In a letter to the Chinese embassy, Rayner pointed to the principle that the public should know what is being proposed before planning permission is granted. She also asked for more details on how the embassy planned to address safety concerns. This would require a further consultation, which could delay the final decision. Legally, only planning considerations should influence Rayner's decision. In reality, she has a difficult political and diplomatic balancing act to perform. On one hand, there are concerns about China's record on human rights and its potential threat to national and financial security. On the other, the UK is keen to pursue closer ties with China – not least to encourage Chinese investment in the UK's faltering economy. So far, the Chinese embassy, currently based in London's Portland Place where it has been since the 1870s, has said it has no plans to alter the designs for its new HQ. In a statement to the BBC, it said it was 'committed to promoting understanding and the friendship between the Chinese and British peoples and the development of mutually beneficial cooperation between the two countries. Building the new embassy would help us better perform such responsibilities'. On objections to the plans it said: 'Anti-China forces are using security risks as an excuse to interfere with the British government's consideration over this planning application. This is a despicable move that is unpopular and will not succeed.' While the fate of China's London embassy is being decided, China has blocked a UK request to rebuild its embassy in Beijing.
