Deputy talker of the Sejm Krzysztof Bosak of the Sejm Speaker, 7 March 2025.
First of all, it must be stressed thatif debate is in an emergencyAnd no uncertainty The planet has entered an extraordinary political situation, we all see that the conditions of global cooperation, defence cooperation are transforming – the interests of circumstantial countries and even blocks of countries are redefined, this I believe that the Prime Minister should be here with us in the Chamber, not leaving immediately after his speech to the media and not returning. This is ridiculous!
Deputy talker of the Sejm @krzysztofbosak:
First of all, it should be stressed that if a debate is taking place in an emergency situation – and without a uncertainty the planet has entered an extraordinary political situation – then the Prime Minister should be here with us in the room, not leaving immediately after his own... pic.twitter.com/wt1OhB3bfj
It shows that the Prime Minister of the current situation does not respect the situation as a crisis. It shows that this is simply a propaganda situation in which opposition voices, all clubs, do not count.
We are represented here – for you the message – on a good level. There are our Members from the Committee on peculiar Services, the Committee on the Interior, the Defence Committee. I'm 1 of the leaders, and I'm asking you to focus on what we gotta say, due to the fact that 10 minutes is not much time to discuss these things.
So, first of all, the Prime Minister is not with us, and I am very pleased that you are the Minister of abroad Affairs and, above all, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. I'm glad they hear what we gotta say. We expected to hear here something we could call a fresh or updated Polish defence doctrine. It didn't come up.
The Prime Minister's speech was lukewarm, it was inconclusive, it was a game on time, to put the hall to sleep, and a general, evasive communicative about the summits. The only specifics we could hear were the financials. besides what president Duda proposed present concerns finance – it is significant.
We're dealing with a mistake.In a situation of real military emergency, We focus mainly on money, and to a tiny degree in the military. We should get out of this trap and truly start talking about what this money is doing, what we get for this money, how we usage and how. There were practically no specifics on this subject.
But let's take a look. What the Prime Minister actually told us. The London summit? The summit in Brussels? Almost nothing.. He said a decision was made to remove the defence from the debt limit. But he didn't say what the decision was! He didn't say what. It's important, isn't it? The questions were from opposition benches or specifics.
He said that there was agreement and, as we realize it, the government's support for the euro-long. The government of Mateusz Morawiecki has already laid out on this. Under what conditions should it be drawn eurolong? We don't want any Euro long to be clear!
We find this direction to be idiotic to fund armed forces in the grant strategy on the basis of debt papers which will be controlled by Eurocrats from the European Commission. But since you guys seem to be enthusiastic, these are circumstantial questions:
Who will decide how to spend the euro long?
Are there any arrangements for the proportion of the distribution between circumstantial countries, due to the fact that we have not received anything recently, so the rules for spending this money were defined. Where's the money going?
How is this to be financed throughout the lifecycle of the products financed in the grant cycle?
It is, ladies and gentlemen, a matt of problems in which you bring our country into. And the bonds will should be repaid precisely the same as the bonds that PiS has drawn.
Moving on.
We have a serious problem with Defence spending in Poland is not at all low, but building defence capabilities goes terribly, terribly slow! Programmes are run for years. You don't drive, you might say. You've changed power a fewer times, and any programs aren't finished. The atomic power plant programme is simply a good example of this, but in the arms sector it is similar.
Time to start talking specifically about the rate of converting spending into fresh defence capabilities, the cost-effectiveness ratio in the case of defence spending, technological and strategical autonomy in terms of the weapons we buy, the full cost of purchased weapons in the life cycle, including the employment of highly specialized engineers to handle all this.
A good example are the decisions to buy fresh helicopters, aircraft, and then to reflect that hundreds of people request to be hired to handle all this in the engineering service of aviation. Several types of tanks, respective types of repair workshops. Does anyone even think about it? Why isn't anyone here talking about it? We want to focus on these things.
These problems cannot be solved by the European Commission's grant scheme. What I have heard from people in the space manufacture at European level is, delight note this: No major state of its strategical projects is backing for European money due to the fact that it does not warrant either discretion or full control. European money is utilized as a complementary origin of financing for serious things. And in Poland, we're discussing it as if you came from overseas or you from Brussels, threw us beads, and we're expected to jump around like these monkeys.
Get serious, grow up! Bad idea, guys.
In a conversation with a delegation from Sweden in fresh days here in Poland, I heard that they in their country do not finance the improvement of the armed forces from debt. Why? due to the fact that erstwhile the defence spending has been made in the following years, it only brings more spending. That's how defence spending works, that's how arms usage works, that's how military usage works.
So if money is spent consistently, to the degree that is actually necessary, it leads to simply falling into a debt trap – or doing what you do: backing inconsistently, making large spending, and then not implementing correctly, not buying what you're developing. You don't usage it, you don't repair it, you don't modernize it. We gotta get out of this trap at last!
Several statements the Prime Minister used, which are highly general and show the way he thinks. “If we accumulate people and spending in Europe”. Our policy is to be based on “if”? No mercy. Come on. "Delete the deficit in Europe, deficiency of will to act". Okay, but how? How do you want to do that? There are different perceptions of risks and different perceptions of interests. There is no shared perception of risks and interests from Iceland to Greece or Estonia to Portugal. How do you want this problem removed? Any ideas? You didn't introduce him today.
Mentzen Route2025. The list of localities to visit in the close future is available at: https://www.facebook.com/slawomirmentzen/events and on the website == sync, corrected by elderman ==.
Entry We have a crisis situation and "the prime minister should be here with us" pochodzi z serwisu Confederation.
