Announcements from Washington Will Not Sway the Polish Presidency

Ignacy Niemczycki in an interview with Mateusz Roszak

What lessons have we learned from the Hungarian Presidency?

The primary lesson is that the role of the presidency is not to pursue a country’s own interests, but to build consensus and unity among the Member States. We can employ tools such as influencing the meeting agenda and presenting relevant issues, but this cannot be done by force. Viktor Orbán’s trips, his rendezvous with Putin, were very controversial, to say the least. It will be our role, however, to ensure that we stand united in Europe and speak with one voice.

We are not hosting a high-level meeting. What other elements will be missing from our presidency?

It is important to draw a distinction between the European Council and the Council of the European Union. It is the latter that Poland will preside over from 1 January. A high-level meeting of state and government leaders falls within the competence of the European Council, and President António Costa has already announced the summit to be held in Brussels. Organising it is not the role of the presidency. Typically, the success of a presidency is measured by the number of legislative acts passed. Our presidency will differ, since, first of all, there was far too much EU legislation during the last EC mandate. We need to take a pause, to have time to analyse whether all of this is necessary. Secondly, a new mandate has begun, and the Commission has already announced that over the next six months there will not be many legislative initiatives.

So how will we measure the success of the presidency?

I hope, but also aspire – and this is what I would like to be held accountable for – that we will succeed in substantially reshaping discussion in the key areas defined by these security dimensions. In this way, the debates and preliminary decisions that are made under the Polish Presidency can change indelibly the mindset of the entire Union. In fact, the question of defence is fundamental, as is the revision of the Green Deal, so that we can combat the climate crisis, while also ensuring the competitiveness of the European economy. I would also point to the need to acknowledge the instrumentalisation of migration in some countries.

It will be for analysts and journalists to assess whether we have succeeded in making a major difference in the state of affairs in the Union in these matters. Handling logistical challenges posed by organising more than 400 meetings across Poland is yet another issue.

Where do you expect the most difficulties when it comes to security developments?

The greatest challenge, I believe, will be external security, because it also includes, as we understand it, the matter of cooperation with the United States. The lesson learned from President Donald Trump’s first administration is that the Member States should strive to achieve as much as possible in bilateral talks. They pursue these agreements and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it results in the US taking a greater interest in Europe in general. By contrast, it would pose a challenge for us if the Member States were to demonstrate a self-centred approach, and this needs to be said explicitly. Europe is prone to becoming deeply divided under the influence of the US administration, which also highlights the importance of transatlantic relations with respect to our internal affairs.

To what extent could announcements from Washington early next year sway the presidency’s plans?

We are prepared for relations with the US to be of fundamental significance for the Polish Presidency. The main focus is obviously on security and defence, including support for Ukraine, and the second one covers trade. We have good proposals for the United States; we are in dialogue with the EC, and the Commission will take on a leading role in trade matters, since they fall within its exclusive competence. I have no sense today that this situation could capsize our presidency. We are also prepared to act quickly in an emergency, if need be. Though, of course, we also envisage very challenging scenarios, and the overall situation introduces the risk of crisis.

Has any interest been expressed by the Member States in specific projects or plans for this half-year?

Yes, absolutely. In fact, we have been having discussions with the Member States on our focus areas for the forthcoming presidency for at least two months. Nearly all countries have specific proposals. It is perhaps not something we are aware of on a daily basis, but expectations surrounding Poland in Europe are very high.

Have you noticed any shift in the attitude of EU countries towards us? I recently heard that Brussels now considers Poland more a leader of the northern countries than of the Visegrad Group. Would you agree?

This is a moment when Poland needs to be able to forge alliances on specific matters. We are also capable of building coalitions with governments that diverge politically from us. Indeed, we have recently seen growing cooperation with the northern countries, with whom we differ on many issues, for example the EU budget. But with regard to the most fundamental ones, such as security, we share a very similar stance. However, that does not mean that we should do away with cooperation forums such as the Weimar Triangle or the Visegrad Group.

The budget discussion is going to be among the most difficult, but is it unlikely that we will see a draft during the presidency?

It seems that we will not start formal negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework during our presidency, but this does not mean that the debates will not be relevant. We will not consider any specific package of proposals, but there will be focused discussions on the needs and formulas for financing them.

Within this scope, are we going to ask for an extension of the National Recovery Plan?

It is not for a country holding the presidency to pursue a matter of relevance to that country. Nevertheless, we will facilitate a discussion about whether the National Recovery Plan formula is appropriate, and whether it should be followed in the future.

The plans of both the presidency and the European Commission, particularly those involving investments, seem fairly ambitious, but the question is: can the EU can afford them? Are governments today convinced and willing to increase spending?

I feel that in Europe today we are aware of this crucial and even historic moment. Competitiveness is one such area. Unless the European economy changes, we will not be able to afford the social model we have today. If we want to protect this lifestyle, we need to become more competitive. The other item is the question of defence. Actually, this may be one of the positive takeaways of Donald Trump’s message, i.e. that we need to take matters into our own hands in Europe. In fact, there is no longer any dispute on this point; everyone understands that this needs to be done. The key question is whether we are ready to make sacrifices in other areas in order to finance defence, for example. ©Ⓟ