Tusk at a rally in Lodz, Poland (Omar Marques/Getty Images)

Was this the election that kickstarted the European Union’s renaissance? Seemingly against the odds, the liberal-centrist pro-EU coalition led by former European Union President Donald Tusk emerged victorious in Sunday’s elections in Poland, stopping the national-conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party from securing a third term in power, and putting an end to its eight-year rule. Most EU leaders cheered the results: the return to power of the militant anti-Brexiteer brings Poland, the most powerful country of the Eastern flank, firmly back into the fold. “Welcome back, Donald”, crowed Politico, barely containing its glee.
It’s an outcome that will have momentous consequences — not just for Poland but for Europe as a whole. Since the PiS came to power in 2015, Poland’s relations with the EU have grown increasingly strained. Over the years, the European Commission has systematically charged Poland with failing to uphold the “rule of law”, as defined by Brussels — for threatening media freedom and judicial independence, not doing enough to tackle systemic corruption, violating LGBT and minority rights, and thwarting the bloc’s immigration policies.
The PiS government, on the other hand, has always contended that these were matters of national sovereignty over which the EU had no say, locking horns with Brussels over what is arguably its most important article of faith: the primacy of EU law over national law.
When Brussels claimed that a new judicial disciplinary body created in 2017 — composed of jurists appointed by Parliament to hear complaints against judges facing misconduct allegations — violated EU law and should be revoked, the Polish government refused to comply. It claimed the demand represented an unacceptable infringement on the country’s national sovereignty. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal upheld the Government’s decision, insisting that national law enjoyed primacy over EU law.
In the eyes of EU officials and pro-EU elites, this, even more than culture-war issues, is what made Poland, along with Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, an existential threat. It was, after all, a serious blow to one of the crucial pillars of the bloc’s empire-building project: integration by law — the stealthy hollowing out of national constitutional and legal systems, through which the EU has slowly aligned policies across the bloc regardless of electoral outcomes. As Luxembourg’s foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, put it at the time: “If this principle is broken, Europe as we know it, as it has been built with the Rome treaties, will cease to exist.”
And this wasn’t all. The PiS also clashed with Brussels and other countries over its opposition to the extension of qualified majority voting, in place of unanimity, to new areas such as foreign policy — seen by integrationists as a way of overcoming the ability of individual countries to block EU initiatives, as well as a precondition for further enlargement.
Yet what made the PiS hated in Brussels is also what led it to become something of a role model in the eyes of other Eurosceptic and national-conservative parties across the continent. As Nicholas Lokker wrote in a recent article for Foreign Policy, “PiS has actively sought to lead a coalition of populist and far-right political parties across the bloc. Warsaw hosted a meeting of numerous leaders of such parties in 2021. This February, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni proclaimed their determination to push back against a ‘centralist vision’ of Europe.”
Amid such strong rhetoric, what went wrong? For a long time, the PiS’s grip on the country seemed unshakeable, with the party persistently enjoying strong support in the polls. The outbreak of the war in Ukraine seemed poised to strengthen the ruling party even further, not least because it dramatically shifted Europe’s geopolitical balance of power from the West to the East — first and foremost to Poland.
Almost overnight, the country, which has always been staunchly pro-US and pro-Nato, and which already had one of the most formidable armies in Europe before the conflict, went from being the EU’s bête noire to being the tip of its spear in Ukraine and Nato’s de facto logistical hub. “Poland has become our most important partner in continental Europe”, a senior US Army official in Europe claimed in November. All of a sudden, in the eyes of Brussels — and especially Washington — Poland was no longer a threat to democracy but, purportedly, a crucial ally in the struggle against autocracy.
These developments strongly emboldened the country’s geopolitical aspirations: as the biggest and richest nation in Central and Eastern Europe (and the sixth-largest economy in the EU), it has long aspired to a leading role in the central and north-eastern quadrant, capable of counterbalancing both Russia and the Franco-German axis. The conflict gave this project a huge impetus.
Indeed, it seemed inevitable that the PiS would benefit from this — but events took a different turn. The fortunes of the PiS were already waning before the war, due to criticisms over its handling of the pandemic, a hugely controversial ruling by Poland’s constitutional tribunal (stating that abortions as a result of foetal defects were unconstitutional), and rising tensions within the governing camp.
The war in Ukraine further complicated matters for the Government: not only did it lead to sky-high inflation, but as a result of the so-called “solidarity routes” set up by the EU, cheap Ukrainian grain flooded the local market, undercutting prices and angering farmers, among whom the PiS had traditionally enjoyed strong support. Confederation, a Right-wing party created in 2018, weaponised the growing frustration among sectors of Polish society with the country’s support for Ukraine, which included taking in at least 2 million refugees. The Government responded by introducing a unilateral ban on Ukrainian grain — and by dramatically withdrawing military support for Ukraine. But it did little to reverse the trend.
Meanwhile, the real beneficiary of the ruling party’s troubles was its arch-enemy: Donald Tusk. A pro-market, pro-EU liberal-centrist, he was the country’s prime minister from 2007 to 2014, before going on to become the EU’s president and then the president of the centre-right European People’s Party until last year. Throughout his career, he has been a devout servant of the EU’s integrationist, supranationalist project: in 2015, when Greek Left-wing leader Alexis Tsipras clashed with the EU over austerity, Tusk played a crucial role in crushing the Greek government’s revolt and pressuring it to accept a new bailout conditional upon a new round of austerity measures. Then, in 2016, he bitterly opposed Brexit, saying that there was “a special place in hell” for Brexiteers.
It was unsurprising, then, that he became the sworn enemy of the PiS — which has always accused him of being responsible for the 2010 plane crash that killed Polish President and PiS co-founder Lech Kaczyński — and in particular of prime minister Morawiecki. In 2021, Tusk decided to make a political comeback with the launch of Civic Platform. Since then, he has skilfully exploited the ruling party’s growing problems, especially the massive backlash against the new abortion law, leading several mass demonstrations against the Government in June and then again two weeks ago.
His victory represents a seismic change in Poland’s political landscape. Tusk has pledged to resolve the country’s rule-of-law disputes with the EU — which essentially means bringing Poland back under the “soft tyranny” of the EU’s legislation, the so-called acquis communautaire, in exchange for which the EU has promised to unlock €35 billion in post-pandemic funds. He has also pledged to offer greater protection for LGBT and women’s rights, as well as renormalising relations with Ukraine. On the economic front, Tusk will likely pursue a pro-business agenda, probably reversing some of the PiS’s generous welfare policies, while on other issues, such as immigration, he will probably maintain the status quo, even though this is unlikely to defuse the country’s hyper-polarised political landscape.
But the ramifications of Tusk’s victory extend well beyond Poland. The most obvious winner is the EU. Not only will it weaken the Right-populist and Eurosceptic front, but it will also give new lifeblood to the EU’s integrationist project. Tusk’s Civic Coalition has, for instance, pledged to “return to the decision-making group in the EU institutions”, and he has often endorsed the use of qualified majority voting in the past. As Lokker put it: “A fresh approach to Poland’s EU partners by a Civic Coalition-led government would significantly widen the window for further EU integration.”
Yet there is also a less obvious winner of Sunday’s election: Germany. The PiS was viscerally anti-German. Last August, for example, Polish foreign minister Zbigniew Rau likened “Russian imperialism” to “imperial practices within the EU”, particularly in Germany; the Polish deputy PM had previously accused Germany of trying to turn the EU into a federal “German fourth Reich”.
Under Tusk, by contrast, Poland is less likely to compete with Germany for leadership of Nato, making it easier for Germany to enact its plan of “becoming the guarantor of European security” — in other words, managing Nato on behalf of Washington, in exchange for being allowed to re-establish a position of economic leadership within the EU. To further drive the message home, a member of the German parliament’s EU committee wrote on Sunday: “Within the Nato framework, the message should be: Germany feels responsible for Poland’s security!”
There is, however, just one problem for pro-EU elites in Germany and elsewhere: while the Right-populist threat might be declining in the East, as Poland’s election attests, it is growing in the West — especially in Germany — largely due to the EU’s prioritisation of US-driven foreign policy diktats over the economic interests of member states. Attempts to use the Polish results to justify a new integrationist power grab by the EU will only embolden anti-EU forces. Brussels might be celebrating for now — but after the party, comes the hangover.
An earlier version of this article did not properly attribute quotations to Nicholas Lokker. This has been corrected.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWell done! Wow, a real discussion with real differences of opinion. Loss count how many times in 64 minutes I agreed and disagreed. What a delight! Bob Pruger, an American dissenter to the lockdown.
Maybe my expectations of this event were too high, but I felt the discussion was far too intellectual for my taste and brain power. Mary Harrington was excellent and articulate and had some interesting and valid viewpoints. I thought I had a reasonable grasp of the english language but I found Aris difficult to follow and hadn’t a clue where he was coming from. I felt it a pity for those online subscribers to have the event combined with a pub evening for those present in the “studio”. I’d forgotten what central London office/pub culture was like.
I turned it off shortly after 40:30, the point where Freddy says that ‘My guess is this panel will be in favor of increased spending’ ‘Is there anyone here that would say its gone too far?’
!!!!!!!!!!!
Only if you believe that the destruction of the world’s economy and millions of lives destroyed and killed matter, and possibly the end of society as we know it because of the “covid” spending. 50 trillion spent on the ‘Response’ globally, that is after a huge asset bubble had been building for decades, and debt higher than ever in history…
Helen Thompson (Political Economics) “Political economy is a branch of social science that studies the relationship that forms between a nation’s population and its government when public policy is enacted.” addressing Freddys question rambled about the ‘Bond Market’, ‘I don’t like it’, and that QE saving the bond market March 2020 caused something, but does not say what, and that taxes cannot pay it back, and the point of no return is crossed but no one can say what it means, and bla, bla, bla….and drops the topic.
Here it is as I see it
1) massive deflation, and the Great Depression II (depression was deflation) (youtube Jeff Booth, Harry Dent, and dozens of others). Tech is Deflationary as it makes manufacturing and software automated, boosts productivity, so drops prices. The Fed must print 5-8% free money just to get 2% inflation because the deflationary effect of tech. Deflation means debt is unaffordable as money is expensive and debt becomes too expensive to ever pay off (Globe holds $200,000,000,000,000 debt public and private) so BOOM! Economy dead if printing slows (UBI will have to be handed out just to keep deflation from happening and the printing presses humming – but that will not work very long)
2) Inflation is needed in our economic system to absorb the excess debt and money printing, 2% is thought ideal, (inflation is a tax on everyone to fund government redistribution) but then….Hyper Inflation. By definition Inflation IS THE INCREASE OF MONEY SUPPLY WITHOUT CORRESPONDING PRODUCTION, AND TRILLIONS OF PRINTING MONETARY AND FISCAL $ IS THAT. THEN WAGE INFLATION IS COMING. CPI, and industrial input inflation is running 5.%, wages inflating, – – real assets inflation, commodities, housing, and Equities, energy (12% – 200% so far, in one year)… Once inflation begins raising interest is normally used to hold it – this is IMPOSSIBLE because the debt, so it has to remain ZERO. If spending ($150 Billion/month + 3.2 Trillion, plus 4 trillion ‘Green’) is ‘Tapered’ (reduced) the entire mess collapses into default. Hyperinflation is like Wiemar, Argentina, Zimbabwe… Peter Schiff, Rickards, Dalio, and others on youtube….
But Unherd does not do Money, but it is like watching Germany in 1932 – 38, just waiting for it to get going, and all the MSM is blithely taking of celebrities and social issues. Covid was not a illness issue, it is an economic issue, and the lockdown may have destroyed us – or not, maybe Tech will keep productivity exponentially rising so we can not produce, but still spend, like in 2020, and we all can retire on UBI soon – or not…..
“””It’s the economy, stupid
“The economy, stupid” is a phrase coined by James Carville in 1992. It is often quoted from a televised quip by Carville as “It’s the economy, stupid.” Carville was a strategist in Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign against incumbent George H. W. Bush”””
Stephen, it was all just word salad they were serving us, just vaguely rambling on trying to express how they felt about something they have not reflected on. You note the vast numbers of umm, er, hmmm, and so on as every second word – that means they had not done the very obvious and necessary step of being given the questions days early to prepare so they could say something thought out and useful.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Oh, are they finished droning on yet? Because I had to pause it or be forced to gnaw my own leg off to escape that sensory deprivation chamber.
There was one moment in the discussion where they discussed of how,when fallowing the bellwether sheep, they used its tail as an indication of direction to take, or if they preferred to fallow its comforting bell, and in the end all agreed it did not matter so long as it was leading them to where they needed to be going.
One caller mentioned how ‘All us sheep live our life in fear of the wolves, yet end up being eaten by the shepherd’. This was derided as Post-Neo-Liberal claptrap by the panel, unanimously, and said the caller must be a F* scist and hung up.
Well done Unherd, and Freddy, bring us this stimulating debate.