Sir Ciecióra, The President did not veto either the EU SAFE instrument or the EU Council's decision to provide financing to Poland, so please do not manipulate. He vetoed the Polish act on the Financial Instrument for Increasing Security SAFE – that is, the act that creates a national mechanism for managing these funds at BGK and the rules for their use, control, and audit. This is really not the same as your: "Tusk bypassed the veto and took out a loan" 🤷♂️ If you want to raise a constitutional or financial allegation, you should first precisely clarify which act was vetoed and what legal consequences this veto caused. And to do that, you first need to read the law that the President actually vetoed with understanding and check what mechanisms it introduced. Only then can one build a political narrative on it. And now the second part of your entry. You are comparing two completely different legal procedures and from this difference, you are making hypocrisy; I am shocked by your logic in this regard. SAFE is a EU law instrument. Financial assistance for Poland was made available by a decision of the EU Council based on the SAFE regulation, and the financing conditions are then specified in a loan agreement with the Commission. On the other hand, lowering Polish taxes requires a change in Polish law. And the law – according to the Constitution – after being passed by parliament goes to the President 🤷♂️ It is not - sometimes you can bypass the President, and other times you need to ask for his consent. These are simply two different legal regimes and two different modes of state action. Turning the constitutional difference of competences into proof of the greatest hypocrisy in history looks impressive for the audience, but legally, not much comes of it 🤷♂️ (translated)
