Search

I understand that you are not an economist, but after all, you have an entire army of "advisors" at your disposal... Because this is no longer information relayed by Moody. This is your RHETORIC. Just like with the debt. "In four years, the government increases debt by a trillion." The thing is, four years have not yet passed 🤷‍♂️ You are already linking the executed debt with a FUTURE FORECAST and then dividing that amount by the number of residents, announcing that a newborn has "26 thousand zł of debt." How do you come to such absurd conclusions?? I won't say it's not impressive... But public debt is not a personal obligation that is assigned to a child's account. And then there's the Constitutional Tribunal. You sign a law, still consider it unconstitutional, and send it to the Tribunal. The same Tribunal that the ECtHR has found to violate the right to a court set by law in the Xero Flor case, and the Grand Chamber of the CJEU in case C-448/23 stated that it does not meet the requirement of an independent and impartial court due to serious irregularities concerning its composition. And just minutes earlier, you said: "I'm not looking at legal loopholes." The Constitution and the legality of state organs are not "legal loopholes," Mr. Guardian of the Constitution 🤦‍♂️ And in the end, you say that you don't want "constant political war"... After a speech in which words fall: - blackmail, - the government’s ATM, - the government's financial catastrophe, - the prime minister's political plan and unsubstantiated claims that the government deliberately maintains high fuel prices to profit from them. I won't judge intentions. I assess the content. And the content of the official statement by the person holding the highest office in the state should withstand confrontation with documents 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Here - in many key areas - it does not withstand. I will no longer dwell on this speech, as I believe it is a waste of time. I'll just say this. I don't know who prepared this text for you. However, I do know that you read it, you delivered it, and you take responsibility for every word. And you repeated nonsense and manipulations that have long circulated in the statements of people from your Chancellery — which I have already corrected multiple times. The worst part is that many of them don't even take long to verify. You just need to open the documents from your own Chancellery. I really don't envy you. It only pains me your slogan: "First Poland, first Poles." Because Poland and Poles should truly come first - even before political interests, party narratives, and the need for another conflict. You cannot appeal to the good of citizens while simultaneously playing with their trust in the state, providing them from the highest office with half-truths, insinuations, and political assessments cloaked as facts. This is not about whether someone likes this government. It's about accountability for words. Especially from this office 🫣 (translated)

Mr. Nawrocki, Unfortunately, I listened to this hmmm "message" and checked it against the documents. And, as usual, I have a problem. A big one. Because when you set aside the gestures, the teleprompter, and the political phrases, what remains is a series of facts mixed with half-truths, altered chronology, forecasts presented as certainties, and accusations that are not even confirmed by the documents of your own Office and a mass of other manipulations. Step by step. "The campaign promise of fuel at 5.19." No. Mr. Donald Tusk’s specific statement about 5.19 PLN was made in JUNE 2022. Parliamentary elections were scheduled for August 8, 2023. Only then did the election campaign begin in the sense of the Electoral Code. But it gets much more interesting with your quote... In the message, you connected 5.19 PLN, "one simple decision," and... a VAT reduction 🤦‍♂️ However, in the original statement about 5.19, Tusk talked about the MARGINS of Orlen and Lotos. And in a later statement about "one decision," he also talked about limiting Orlen's profits. Not about VAT! 🤦‍♂️ You are manipulating the Prime Minister's statement, and you are using the institution of the Address to the Nation for that... Exactly the same version about VAT was spread by Mr. Bogucki in the morning, but in his case, nothing surprises me anymore. A coincidence? Let’s move on. You claim that your project would cause "an immediate drop in fuel prices of over 2 PLN." Meanwhile, your OWN justification explicitly states that the mechanism DOES NOT START when the law comes into force. First, specific market conditions must occur. Then the Council of Ministers MAY issue a regulation. Only then does the mechanism begin to work. Where is the "immediate" here? Did you read your "own" project? Or are you just repeating this nonsense from Mr. Przydacz? Moreover, earlier materials from KPRP talked about an ESTIMATE of 1.70–2.60 PLN 🤦‍♂️ In the address, the estimate has already turned into a guaranteed effect 🤦‍♂️ Next, you say that the project is "good for the budget"... Meanwhile, your own justification predicts a loss of up to 600 million PLN just from the retail sales tax and further, unestimated costs of any potential excise tax reduction. I ask again - did you read your own project? Because you probably didn’t write it manually... Even more interesting. In the address: "The government bears full responsibility for fuel prices." In the justification of your project: market disruptions have an "objective character and are independent of entrepreneurs and the government".... So please decide. Full responsibility of the government or factors independent of the government? Because both versions cannot be true at the same time 🤦‍♂️ "The Marshal of the Sejm freezes the project." The project was submitted on September 18. On the same day, it was directed to the Legislative Office and BEOS. Then for opinions and consultations. Moreover, KPRP talked about the possibility of "freezing" as early as September 17 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ THE DAY BEFORE THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE SEJM! So first, a narrative about freezing was created, and only later did the Marshal receive the bill 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Are you communicating with the rest of the "experts" in your office?? Next, we hear that the government deliberately keeps prices high because it wants to profit from VAT and dividends from Orlen. Proof? None was provided! A higher price may mean higher nominal VAT revenues. Orlen can pay dividends to shareholders. But one does not imply the other: this is NOT proof that the government deliberately keeps fuel prices high. This is attributing a motive without providing evidence 🤦‍♂️ Then you sign the law and say: "Every zloty obtained from this law must be spent on reducing fuel prices." A moment earlier, you conceded that the law DOES NOT CONTAIN a mechanism for passing that money on to reduce prices 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Exactly. So it "mustn't." This is your political demand, not the legal effect of the signed law 🤷‍♂️ Moody’s? Yes. Here, the fact is a fact: Poland's rating was lowered from A2 to A3. But why was there no information that at the same time, the outlook was changed from negative to STABLE? Why does the rating decision then create a vision that "tomorrow there may not be enough for pensions and armaments"? (translated)

Nawrocki said that this law is bad. That it is unconstitutional. That he will not sign it. Today he signed it, still claiming that it is unconstitutional. And with this one signature, he has called into question all his other vetoes. Because if one can sign a law that one considers bad and unconstitutional, then what actually decides a signature or a veto? It seems that Poland and Poles have become hostages to Nawrocki's approval ratings. But there is one good piece of news. The pressure MAKES SENSE. (translated)

I would like us to maintain this program at least until the end of this year. – I would like us to maintain this program at least until the end of this year. We all see that the situation in the Strait of Hormuz is still very tense, that oil prices, fuel prices on the markets are still very high – stated Minister Andrzej Domański on Thursday, who is on a visit to the USA. (translated)

Unfortunately, the president succumbed to Donald Tusk's government and SIGNED the bill on extraordinary profits of fuel companies. I voted against this bill and was counting on a veto. Why? Because this bill, in addition to the tax (which will still be paid by consumers) and filling the government's coffers, does not eliminate the real causes of this high prices. The true cause of these high prices is, firstly, the EU climate policy and the associated taxes, which Morawiecki agreed to, and which were intensified and continued by Donald Tusk. Secondly, the obstinacy of the Polish government, which in view of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz is neither looking for nor even trying to find alternative suppliers. These are the real causes of today's expensive fuel, which neither the Polish government nor - as it seems - the Presidential Palace wants to solve. Today, the president removed his image responsibility for expensive fuel, bowed to the government, but did not solve the real causes of the problem. Prices will temporarily drop a bit, but we will still have expensive fuel and another tax to pay. Because if we were to consider today the signing of the bill by Karol Nawrocki as justified, we would have to admit that Donald Tusk's solution was good. It was not. (translated)

Andrzej Domański did not receive the message of the day and accuses the president of vetoing the fuel law XD: “The president is a threat to the Polish economy and his extremely irresponsible policy” “President Nawrocki behaves like a spoiled child, vetoing laws that would strengthen the finances of the state. In whose interest? Big corporations” Without a message from Tusk, what are they supposed to say, they are simply like children in the fog. (translated)

Domański hot takes after Nawrocki's decision: “The president Nawrocki is a threat to the Polish economy, he behaves like a spoiled child. I can assure you that the funds from the excess profits law will certainly be enough until the end of this year.” 1. Until the end of the year? But it was said about 4-5 months? Is it already starting to spin? XD 2. Better to behave like a child than like the fraudsters who haven’t fulfilled even 1/4 of their promises. (translated)