Conservative Karol Nawrocki wins Poland's presidential election
Conservative Karol Nawrocki has won Poland's weekend presidential runoff election, according to the final vote count.
Mr Nawrocki won 50.89% of the votes in a very tight race against liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, who received 49.11%.
Advertisement
The close race had the country on edge since a first-round two weeks earlier and through the night into Monday, revealing deep divisions in the country along the eastern flank of NATO and the European Union.
An early exit poll released on Sunday evening suggested Mr Trzaskowski was headed to victory before updated polling began to reverse the picture hours later.
The outcome indicates that Poland can be expected to take a more nationalist path under its new leader, who was backed by US President Donald Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Steel industry braced for 50% Trump tariff despite UK-US deal
The steel industry is braced to be impacted by Donald Trump's implementation of a 50% tariff, despite Sir Keir Starmer's landmark deal with the White House. Downing Street would not say on Tuesday whether British steel exporters would be hit with 50% tariffs from the US from Wednesday, despite an agreement to eliminate the charges. Last week US President Mr Trump announced he was doubling tariffs on the imports of steel from 25% to 50%. The UK struck a deal with Washington for import taxes on its steel to be removed weeks ago, but its implementation has not been finalised. The steel industry is working on the understanding that the sector will be impacted by the new rules and the 50% levy will likely affect UK steelmakersfrom Wednesday. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds was due to meet US trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris on Tuesday. Asked whether it was 'embarrassing' that steelmakers could face a worse situation despite the announcement of the deal last month, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'I'm not going to get ahead of announcements for the United States. 'But what you've seen so far is the US and the UK agree a landmark deal across sectors to protect British industries – cars, steel, aluminium – and you've seen the welcoming statements the industries have made in support of the agreement. 'When it comes to implementation of the agreement, that work is ongoing.' Number 10 later insisted that Mr Trump would keep his word on the UK-US deal. Asked if Mr Trump could be trusted, a No 10 spokesman said: 'Yes, absolutely. We have a very close relationship with the US. I think that's reflected in the fact that this deal has been signed, and that it is, as we've said before, the first of its kind.' UK Steel has previously said the tariff announcement is a 'body blow' for the industry. Director general Gareth Stace said: 'The deal that the Prime Minister and President Trump struck just a few short weeks ago is yet to be finalised, so this doubling of tariffs plunges the UK steel industry further into confusion. 'Uncertainty remains as to whether and when our second biggest export market will be open for business or is being firmly shut in our faces.' Meanwhile, a Tata Steel director told the Business and Trade Committee on Tuesday that the UK 'absolutely' needs to go faster in supporting the steel industry in response to US tariffs. Russell Codling, director of markets, business development and commercial services at Tata said: 'It is not just for us making sure that this deal (with the US) is the right deal, it is also about making sure that the trade protection measures are the appropriate ones in the UK, and they are at least as good as other trading partners around the world.' When asked if the UK needs to go faster on the issue, Mr Codling said: 'Absolutely.' The same committee also heard from leaders in other sectors that have been affected by the tariff arrangements, including car manufacturing. An industry figure told the MPs that motoring firms would 'of course' like the 100,000 quota for a 10% tariff on car imports into the US to be higher. Murray Paul, public affairs director at Jaguar Land Rover said: 'Of course we'd prefer for it to be higher. 'But I think if we're honest it's there or thereabouts what the current market volume is of producing from the UK into the US. 'We are expectant that it's administered fairly, that if there's a small amount of pain that that is distributed equally amongst British manufacturers of goods. 'Obviously, we would like it to grow in the future because we think there's a growth opportunity in the US market as the incredible cars that we produce in this country are admired around the world.' A Government spokesperson said: 'Ministers and officials have worked tirelessly to ensure that the UK was the first country to secure a trade deal with the US, helping us deliver on the Plan for Change. 'The Government is engaging intensively with the US to implement the Economic Prosperity Deal that we agreed on May 8 at pace, including on steel and aluminium, and will update on progress in due course.'
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Healey says UK ‘already makes huge contribution' to Nato
John Healey has said the UK already 'makes a huge contribution to Nato', amid speculation that the alliance will push for allies to commit to increase defence spending. The Defence Secretary pointed to the UK's nuclear deterrent, and plans to make a 'bigger contribution' to Nato, as he sidestepped questions about suggestions that the alliance will set a 3.5% of gross domestic product military spending target. The Prime Minister has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament, a timetable which could stretch to 2034. But Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte is thought to be pushing for allies to commit to spending 3.5% on the military, with a further 1.5% on defence-related measures, as the alliance responds to Russian President Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine. Leaders from the alliance will meet in The Hague later this month, with the total 5% spending target by 2035 on the table. Speaking on Tuesday, Mr Healey said: 'As the Prime Minister has said, Britain already makes a huge contribution to Nato. 'We've published a defence review that has Nato at its heart and I'm announcing today the new spending in this Parliament, £4 billion, doubling the amount that we'll put into drones. 'And we'll make a bigger contribution to Nato through that, and £1 billion over this Parliament to develop laser weapons, the first European nation in Nato to have laser weapons on our destroyers and then with our land forces. 'This is Britain leading in Nato, contributing more to Nato, just as we do, for instance, with our nuclear deterrent, the only country with a nuclear deterrent that commits it in full to other Nato nations.' The Prime Minister and Mr Healey have already come under pressure to spell out how the existing 3% goal could be met. Asked if he would be prepared to raise taxes to safeguard the nation's defence, Mr Healey said: 'We will deliver the spending commitments that we've made. I've got no doubt we can do that in the next parliament. 'We're already raising defence spending by £5 billion this year and now it will go up to 2.5% of GDP in just two years' time. 'Britain's never spent that level for 15 years. 'This is a biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. The important thing is how we spend it.' Downing Street refused to be drawn on the possibility of an increased spending demand, as the Prime Minister's official spokesman told reporters: 'The UK is already the third-highest spender in Nato in cash terms, behind the United States and Germany. 'We are one of 22 allies of the 32 in Nato that already exceed the 2% of GDP Nato target.' The Strategic Defence Review published earlier this week recommended a greater focus on new technology, including drones and artificial intelligence. The Ministry of Defence announced a £5 billion investment in the 'kit of the future', after the publication of the review on Monday. The funding includes £4 billion for drones and autonomous systems, and an extra £1 billion for lasers to protect British ships and soldiers. In addition to investment in drones and AI, the Government has announced an additional £1 billion for the development of 'directed energy weapons' (DEWs) during the current Parliament. This includes the DragonFire laser scheduled to be fitted to the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyers from 2027, with a similar system provided for the Army by the end of the decade. DragonFire and other DEWs are intended to provide a lower-cost form of air defence against targets including drones, costing just £10 per shot compared with the thousands of pounds it costs to fire existing weapons.
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The senate referee who could decide the fate of Trump's mega-bill
A rarely-talked-about, unelected bureaucrat within the Senate may have the power to tank President Donald Trump 's big beautiful bill. The Senate Parliamentarian, a position held by Elizabeth MacDonough since 2012, is about to weigh in on whether the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act runs afoul of the upper chamber's rules. The parliamentarian is more often than not an afterthought, typically because their role is to be the Senate's hall monitor, essentially making sure mundane processes on the floor are adhered to. However, the parliamentarian is thrust into the spotlight every time senators try to pass a bill through budget reconciliation, a process that allows the Senate to pass items with a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster. Since Trump's big beautiful bill is going through reconciliation, MacDonough has the power to veto certain provisions that she feels aren't related to the budget or are solely policy objectives. The appeal of the reconciliation process is obvious. Since Republicans control 53 seats in the Senate, a united GOP can essentially pass the bill without input from a single Democratic senator. The catch is, MacDonough can pick and choose which line items in the bill need to be slashed with red ink. She will be responsible for interpreting whether the Big Beautiful Bill complies with something called the Byrd Rule, which has been around since 1985. The Byrd Rule is named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who was a key figure in instituting the guardrails around reconciliation packages like the one Trump is trying to ram through. The most important facet of the Byrd Rule states that reconciliation bills cannot have provisions in them that don't have an effect on the budget. Put simply, if a provision doesn't meaningfully increase or decrease federal spending, it can be considered extraneous and be tossed out of the bill. The Byrd Rule also prohibits reconciliation bills from overhauling Social Security or increasing the deficit for a fiscal year not included in the bill's purview. The test to see whether a bill complies with the rule has been referred to as the 'Byrd Bath.' MacDonough last used the 'Byrd Bath' to water down President Joe Biden's Build Back Better package in 2022. Specifically, she struck down three separate attempts by the Democrats to provide a pathway to citizenship for eight million immigrants living in the United States illegally. Now, she's in the position to take a major bite out of Trump's agenda, though its not entirely clear what she might take aim at. Many have speculated MacDonough will rule against a provision buried deep within the bill that will upend the US judicial system. Section 70302 of the bill would severely limit the power of federal courts to enforce injunctions or hold government officials in contempt. This comes as federal judges have slapped the second Trump administration with an unprecedented 25 nationwide injunctions in its first 100 days , most of which curtailed the government's ability to deport illegal migrants. During a townhall on Friday, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, told a constituent that she believed this provision has no chance of getting through the Senate. 'I don't see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenues, so I just don't see that I don't see that getting into the Senate bills,' Ernst said. The big beautiful bill also contains a section that prohibits Medicaid funds from going to any clinic that provides abortions. Back in 2017, the parliamentarian found that a similar provision in a reconciliation bill violated the Byrd Rule, which could mean she'll strike it down again this time. The current bill's regulations on AI could also be cast aside in the impending Byrd Bath. There is precedent for the Senate simply ignoring the parliamentarian. The declarations of MacDonough and all the other parliamentarians before her have been non-binding and lacking in actual enforcement power. Just two weeks ago, the Senate voted 51-44 to repeal a federal waiver that allowed California to institute an electric vehicle mandate, completely disregarding the parliamentarian's guidance on the issue. Democrats condemned the move by Republicans, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying, 'Republicans, I believe, I am certain, will come to regret the ill-considered step they take tonight.' Going back a bit further, there is also precedent of Senate leaders getting rid of the parliamentarian over disagreements on the Byrd Rule. On May 7, 2001, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., fired the parliamentarian at the time, Robert Dove, because he was getting in the way of President George W. Bush's budget bill. Exactly one month later, with a new parliamentarian in place, Bush was able to sign his first landmark tax cut into law. This scenario appears unlikely to repeat, since Senate Majority Leader John Thune has indicated that he isn't even willing to overrule the parliamentarian, let alone fire her. 'We're not going there,' Thune told reporters on Monday.
