Search

WHAT 1.2-1.3 PLN PER LITER. WHAT AFTER THE WEEKEND Tusk 15.09.26: "I guarantee that if the president finally signs the now resubmitted extraordinary profits bill, we will immediately implement the next version of the CPN, which means lowering fuel prices." So they did this circus just to lower the value of VAT XD Nothing more will change. Oh my dear… (translated)

This post by the half-German @donaldtusk is a plea for mercy, but there will be no mercy. Instead, there will be 5.19 2.0 and he won't shake it off, especially since fuel prices at stations will continue to scare, and the escape with the law was one big scam, because they will lower VAT, which they could have done without any problem. (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)

You mentioned that @SuomenPoliisi prohibited you from discussing matters related to the investigation. Did the police explain what this prohibition is based on? According to Section 5 of Chapter 11 of the Preliminary Investigation Act, a prohibition must be given in writing and formally communicated. It must specify the subject of the prohibition, the duration of the prohibition, and the potential penalties. The prohibition can only relate to matters that have come to light in the investigation, which do not concern the prohibited person themselves and which they did not previously know. Moreover, their disclosure must additionally be able to complicate the investigation or cause harm or disadvantage to someone. What was such a matter in this case? The investigation concerns a message that has already been published. The suspect's own suspicion of a crime, their own message, and what the police have reported regarding their status concern the suspect themselves. The prohibition does not extend to them, nor does Paragraph 2 of Section 23 of the Publicity Act, which only pertains to confidential information regarding other individuals obtained as parties involved. The police must also clarify the content of the confidentiality obligation (ETL 11:6). Was that done? If the police prohibited the recording of the interrogation or the publication of its content, what is the legal basis for the restriction, and what information does it pertain to? If the suspect cannot record, will the police record it themselves? The interrogation must be recorded when the method of its conduct should be able to be verified later (ETL 9:3). In this matter, the basis is evident. The suspect has the right to remain silent. You can refuse to answer until the binding nature, basis, and scope of the prohibition have been clarified (and, of course, otherwise as well). You do not have to guess the limits of an ambiguous prohibition. The police do not need to allow the publication of all material in advance. But if an authority claims that revealing information is punishable, the basis and subject of the prohibition must be specified. If it was a request, it should not be presented as an obligation, and such a request can always be met with a mocking belly laugh. (translated)

I understand well that the government is pleased with the alleged victory over the President in videos online, but now it must account almost immediately for promises of low fuel prices, and due to the President's decisions, VAT revenues are falling, which exacerbates the government's poor ratings? "It's all good!" (translated)

Instead of lowering prices, the government prefers to profit from fuel taxes, since diesel at 9 zlotys means more money in the budget from VAT and greater profit for Orlen, which will then pay a solid dividend to the Minister of Finance - President of Poland @NawrockiKn. (translated)

Alex Vatanka, the head of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute in Washington, also found that the Iranian leadership may not be able to withstand the U.S. blockade for long, as it seriously harms the country's economy and threatens the survival of the ruling regime. (translated)

If it turns out to be true that the pro-Kremlin @StepanenkoJulij, with open Kremlin money and support, collects a full house in the elections in Latvia, our country is in a bad state. Very bad. Among other things, with security services and legislation. Go vote for Latvian parties! There are no alternatives. (translated)

"Wir schulden jeder Frau und jedem Mädchen in Südafrika ein Land, in dem sie nicht berechnen muss, wo sie gehen darf, zu welcher Zeit sie reisen darf, was sie anziehen darf, wem sie vertrauen darf und ob ein Nein ihr Leben in Gefahr bringt"Er stehe hier mit "schwerstem Herzen" und spreche nicht nur als Staatschef, sondern auch als Mann, als Ehepartner sowie als Vater von Töchtern, sagte Cyril Ramaphosa gleich zu Beginn seiner Fernsehansprache. #Femizide #GewaltGegenFrauen #Südafrika

The situation: CDU member of parliament who caused an accident while on drugs keeps his mandate. Leftist member of parliament who chills with terror fans and clans keeps his mandate. CDU member of parliament who was always against surrogacy but became a father through a surrogate, who allegedly reported sick but then flew to Sardinia, keeps his mandate. Leftist member of parliament who wants to become the mayor of Berlin was a member for years in an association monitored by the domestic intelligence service, just continues. (translated)

Andy Burnham, the British Prime Minister, gave an emotional speech at the Labour Party conference, in which he remembered his late father, invoked solidarity, and criticized the negative effects of Brexit on the UK, while not ruling out a possible return of the country to the EU. (translated)