The Polish government was preparing for action, with an armada of mainly political arguments and a media campaign, on the eve of the vote on the selection of the President of the European Council, in an attempt to overthrow what seems to make perfect sense to most of the member states: give Donald Tusk a second term in office.
The diplomatic offensive launched by Poland with no warning on Saturday 4 March (see EUROPE 11739) was stepped up a notch on Wednesday 8 March, 24 hours ahead of the summit in Brussels, with the publication of a letter from the Polish Prime Minister, Beata Szydło, which was sent to the 27 other heads of state or government of the EU. In it, she lists the reasons why Tusk should not, in her view, be given another two and a half years at the helm of the European Council.
Of all the arguments put forward, it clearly emerges that the party currently in power in Poland holds one grudge against Tusk in particular, aside from the fact that he did not consult Warsaw ahead of the summit of Valetta about his intentions of standing for a second term. This grudge is the speech he made in Wrocław in December 2016, in which he spoke of violations of the Constitution and infringements of the European democratic model, in reference to the conflict being fought out at the Polish Parliament between the Conservative party in power (Law and Justice, PiS) and the opposition.
Szydło pointed out that after this speech, she was clearly never going to take kindly to this candidate, whom she has never held particularly dear. She argues that in Wrocław, Tusk used his position within the EU to interfere personally in a political conflict in Poland. In so doing, he overstepped his mandate, by brutally violating the political neutrality incumbent on the President of a European institution. The proposed solution is to opt for another candidate, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski MEP, who has all the necessary skills to breathe new life into the EU, she said.
On Wednesday, Tusk mounted a defence against this criticism of him, stating that he is very well aware of the limits of his mandate and that he has always been "impartial and politically neutral versus all 28 member states". "At the same time, of course, I'm also responsible for protecting European values and principles. This is also my role and my deep belief", he said, following the tripartite social summit. He said that he was ready to hear the verdict of the European Council on Thursday.
Should Tusk's term in office be renewed, in spite of everything, the Polish Prime Minister warned her opposite numbers: this choice would be against the opinion of the government of the candidate's country of origin, which runs counter to the inter-governmental nature of the work of our Council. Furthermore, with regard to Tusk's role as a political opponent in Poland, the choice would set a dangerous precedent and send out the wrong signal ahead of the summit of Rome (25 March), at which the EU hopes above all to show unity, with Brexit on the horizon.
How far will the Polish government go to block his re-election? This was the question on all lips and still seems to be a matter for reflection within that government, whose Prime Minister arrived in Brussels on Wednesday evening to hold talks on Thursday with, amongst others, Chancellor Angela Merkel, a few hours before the start of the summit. As we went to press, the situation was relatively clear: not a single member state officially backs Saryusz-Wolski and Tusk is the only credible and declared candidate.
From a purely arithmetical point of view, therefore, there will be no need to count the votes. From a legal point of view, Poland has no means of blocking the election. However, the question is really whether or not there will be a vote (by 'extended' qualified majority: 72% of the members of the Council must vote in his favour, representing at least 65% of the EU population). Poland is focusing mainly on the unprecedented and political nature of the issue, as well as on the highly informal nature of the procedure to try to scupper Tusk's re-election, for instance by deferring the decision until a later date.
The Maltese Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat, will have the job of managing the situation and deciding on whether or not to proceed to a vote. According to one diplomat, Muscat would rather seek consensus. So far, the only decision he has made is not to invite Saryusz-Wolski to come and present his working programme to the European leaders, as called for by the only member state to support his candidacy. (Original version in French by Jan Kordys)