Donald Tusk has found his own ‘special place in hell'
Poland's prime minister has narrowly won a vote of confidence in his warring coalition after his preferred centrist presidential candidate was defeated earlier this month.
Instead, the Trump-inspired Eurosceptic Karol Narwocki crossed the line first in Poland's presidential elections.
On Wednesday, a total of 243 MPs in the 460-seat parliament backed Mr Tusk's coalition, achieving the simple majority needed for the government to survive in a result he said will give his cabinet new momentum.
'We have a mandate to take full responsibility for what's going on in Poland,' Tusk told parliament in a debate ahead of the confidence vote. 'Governing Poland is a privilege.'
But despite surviving the vote, the prime minister now faces two and a half years of being a lame duck leader hobbled by the new veto-wielding opposition president.
While most of the power in Poland's political system rests with an elected parliament, and a government chosen by the parliament, the president can veto legislation.
This will likely see Mr Narwocki block reform efforts planned by Mr Tusk, such as the planned introduction of same-sex partnerships or easing a near-total ban on abortion.
There are therefore questions about what Mr Tusk can realistically achieve before the next parliamentary election, scheduled for late 2027, and analysts say many Polish voters are disillusioned with the government's failure to deliver on key promises, including reforming the judiciary and raising the threshold at which Poles start paying taxes.
'I don't know the word surrender'
Mr Tusk's authority has also been badly damaged with murmurs that the time has come for him to hand over leadership of the alliance, something he has refused to do.
'I know the taste of victory, I know the bitterness of defeat, but I don't know the word surrender,' he said.
Mr Tusk, the former president of the European Council, was withering about Brexit before he became Poland's prime minister.
He said at the time there was a ' special place in hell ' for 'those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan of how to carry it out safely'.
Now he is facing the possible fall of his pro-EU government in what threatens to become his David Cameron moment.
Emmanuel Macron, another fierce critic of Brexit, has already suffered a similar fate at the hands of Eurosceptic populists.
He called snap elections in France after he was trounced by Marine Le Pen's National Rally in last year's European Parliament elections.
The French president lost his majority, dramatically reducing his ability to act in domestic politics. He would have lost control of the government, had a 'front republican' of voters not united to keep the hard Right from power.
There was an expectation that a similar 'front republican' would have prevented Mr Narwocki's victory in Poland, but it fell just short.
That is a warning before the presidential elections in France in 2027, which the ardently Europhile Mr Macron will not be able to contest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Britain's sluggish economy the fault of the Labour government?
The latest economic growth numbers may have been fairly unimpressive by most historical standards, but they were rather better than recent readings and surpassed market expectations. The first estimate of the size of the UK economy showed it had expanded by 0.3 per cent in the second quarter of this year, against a rise of 0.7 per cent in the first three months. Investors had 'priced in' a minimal 0.1 per cent rise. The annual increase, ie on the same period last year, is 1.2 per cent. Is this good news or bad news? What's happening? The pattern of sluggish economic growth that has prevailed in Britain, and most of the West, since the global financial crisis of 2008, is proving to be the new normal. It's not what we had come to expect. For most of the postwar period, punctuated by stop-go cycles, average economic growth was running at 2 to 2.5 per cent a year, with some endemic inflation and structural unemployment. By the 1990s this had accelerated to something like 2.7 per cent, combined with lower inflation and unemployment. In recent years, excepting the pandemic, growth has been more like 1 to 2 per cent. This is driven by low investment and a poor productivity record, exacerbated by market loss post-Brexit. Is this what Labour promised? No. It gave the impression that the very act of electing a Labour government to replace the incompetent Conservatives would lift confidence and 'kickstart' the economy, but no firm evidence of that has emerged. Expectations have not been fulfilled. For example, the Labour manifesto stated: 'Sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. That is why it is Labour's first mission for government. It means being pro-business and pro-worker. We are the party of wealth creation.' Rachel Reeves, when she was shadow chancellor, promised 'securonomics', but little has since been heard about that either; tax rises and welfare cuts have been the main talking points. Will Labour's policies work? They may well do, but not necessarily fast enough to produce tangible results by the time of the next general election, and to rescue Labour's second term. There are many measures that should edge up growth, even if each is comparatively modest: the Brexit reset; trade deals with the US and India; making the public finances stable; reforming planning rules; expanding airports; building 1.5 million homes; green energy including nuclear power; loosening financial regulation; making room for cuts in interest rates; and some strategic investments in new sectors. Headwinds for the UK include the continuing world trade war, cuts in migration, a trend to higher debt-financing costs globally, and the prospect of more wars. The problem is that any major investment drive takes years, which means that much of the benefit in lifting the trend rate of economic growth won't be felt until the early to mid-2030s – by which time some other political party may be in power and claiming the credit. What can Labour do? Up its presentation. As with the NHS, voters need hard evidence that things are indeed improving, even if slowly, and that they are on the path to better times. That means explaining why present sacrifices have to be made, but also some vision of the rewards that will follow as a result. The party needs to boast and showcase its successes. Does it matter? The economy will always be central, which in a way is a strength for Labour given that it can't win on the 'culture war' issues. A display of determination and competence in running the public finances and the wider economy can win the confidence of the voters. Unfortunately, Reeves has made too many errors of political judgement to be confident that the public will be receptive to anything she says. But give it time, and some evidence of higher living standards and improved public services, and that can be turned around. Is the opposition capitalising on Labour's misfortunes? Not that much. The words 'Liz Truss' and 'mini-Budget' still make people – including the current shadow chancellor – wince. The memories of the Tory years in power aren't that rosy: a long spell of austerity, followed by Brexit, Partygate, splits, crises, and general 'chaos and confusion'. Labour can still rightly pin some of the blame for 'broken Britain' on 14 years of Tory rule. The electorate simply isn't yet ready to give the Tories a hearing; they've apologised for Truss, but it's not enough. Meanwhile, perhaps from frustration with the two main parties, voters are curiously susceptible to the lavish and unrealistic promises made by Nigel Farage and Reform UK. Again, this could actually turn to Labour's advantage if it concentrates on the not-too-difficult task of proving that Farage's fantastical figures don't add up. Not much sign of that yet, though. Labour's biggest problem isn't so much the economy as complacency.
Times
10 minutes ago
- Times
Welcome to the age of ‘geoeconomics'
A s Europe prepares to watch from the sidelines while the United States and Russia negotiate the future of Ukraine in Alaska, references to geopolitics are, once again, everywhere. The 'geo' buzz has been upon us for a while. According to almost every commentator, we live in the age of 'geoeconomics'. And yet, when real-world great power competition comes knocking, analysts struggle to make sense of it. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in reactions to the recent EU-US trade deal. Commentators have labelled it a humiliating and economically unnecessary climbdown, while berating European negotiators for their lack of strategy. The UK, which struck a deal limiting most tariffs to 10 per cent rather than the EU's 15 per cent, is seen as having achieved a better result.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
What do Ukrainians think of Trump-Putin Alaska summit?
A train slowly pulls into Berlin Central Station. As the doors open, crowds of Ukrainians spill on to the platform. Some hold tightly on to the small bags they carry, or the loved ones they hope now are safe. They believe the war will be over soon; they have no idea that it will be years before some can return home. This was the scene on 1 March 2022. Germany is now home to the most Ukrainian refugees in the European Union. Some of the 1.2 million seeking shelter still live in sprawling container camps. On the edge of one, we meet Olena P who fled at the end of 2022 with her son, Valentin, and her parents. In Ukraine, they lived in an apartment, now everything is crammed into a boxy cabin. After more than three years of fighting, there's no sign it's safe to return to her home by the border. Donald Trump once claimed he could stop the war in 24 hours of becoming president. That hasn't happened, but I ask Olena if his meeting with President Putin in Alaska gives her fresh hope that the fighting could soon be over. "I don't know anyone who trusts Trump," she snaps back in reply. "It's a horrible joke, this meeting with the terrorist president of Russia. It's unbelievable." Moscow has always stood by its decision to launch what it called "a special operation" in Ukraine. The ensuing invasion forced Olena to flee her home in the city of Kherson. "We had an apartment by Dnipro river. It was a beautiful apartment, but it was destroyed," she says showing me a video of a flame-ravaged neighbourhood. "My city, Kherson, is destroyed every day, people die every minute." Olena is furious that they have lost everything, and the Russia president they hold responsible has been invited to the US for a meeting. "I'm angry. I'm disappointed. I don't understand why. I understand for Trump it's only money," she tells me. President Trump has made clear his desire for the fighting to end. "I'm trying to stop the ridiculous war in Ukraine. Too many people have died," he said in April. Ahead of the summit, he said he believed Putin would make a deal, but in a flat just north of Berlin's centre, 31-year-old refugee, Mariia, is feeling dismayed. "Is it normal to play with a war criminal and boost your ego? Or is it normal to help another state to defend people?" she fumes. "It's a way larger issue than just Ukraine's territory, it is about the world order." Mariia Borysova fled Kyiv in the summer of 2022. She flicks through photos of her home city, commenting on how much it has changed. She fears Ukraine will be forced to sacrifice more land before the fighting stops. "I do not see how giving up land helps to win, because so far what the practice has shown is that Putin plays more wildly when he gets what he wants," she says. President Trump has said any land swaps will have to be signed off by Ukraine and warned there will be "severe consequences" if Putin doesn't agree to peace. But in a Ukrainian cafe in the former Soviet-run east Berlin, mum-of-four Olena Kroshka is sceptical. When Russian forces invaded in 2022, they occupied her village for more than a month. She remembers seeing men in black searching the streets. Some neighbours were interrogated or shot. Her family eventually escaped to Berlin, but she fears her country is about to be sold short. "Do you trust President Trump to represent Ukraine?" I ask. "I think he is a trader, and he is pretty brutal in his policy and he's pushing the people to get the conditions he wants," she says. "What about President Putin? Do you think he has any desire for peace?" I ask. "I don't think that he is considering those terms, like peace and not peace. I think he has kind of a picture in his head. He's just trying to get it by any means," she replies. Olena, like the other refugees, has lost so much - friends, family, whole lives have been destroyed.
