TVPINFO — Pytanie dnia
20260920 175800 UTC
264 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:41] Good evening, Aleksandra Pawlicka, I invite you to the question of the day. Our guest is already
[00:00:44] in the studio, MP Aleksandra Leo,
[00:00:48] Center Union, spokeswoman for this party. Good evening, Ms.
[00:00:51] Editor. Today is the party convention and the presentation
[00:00:54] of the program, and we will certainly talk about that, but I would like to start with
[00:00:58] the topic of the day, which is... the so-called
[00:01:01] price list of President Nawrocki. The private
[00:01:05] Foundation for Development Strategy Center, according to reports from Radio Z and
[00:01:08] Newsweek, was supposed to offer paid meetings with the
[00:01:12] President. When you heard about it, did it outrage
[00:01:15] you, surprise you, or
[00:01:18] surprise you? Unfortunately, less and less. Outrage you? Of course it does. Well,
[00:01:22] I must admit, I have never encountered a situation where a meeting with the
[00:01:25] president or the president's entourage, the president's close entourage,
[00:01:28] well, there was basically
[00:01:31] a price list, a price list like a menu in a restaurant, because
[00:01:35] that's what it looks like from what was circulating
[00:01:38] in the media today. The question is what will happen in a day
[00:01:42] or two? Will we find out how much a presidential veto costs? Will we find out how much
[00:01:46] a pardon costs?
[00:01:49] The price list. We are talking, we are talking about 2,500, 50, and
[00:01:52] 1,000 dollars according to journalists, it
[00:01:55] depends on whether it was a one-on-one meeting
[00:01:59] or... a wider group. Journalists explain, because there was already
[00:02:03] a statement from the president's spokesman, Mr.
[00:02:06] Leśkiewicz, that the chancellery did not organize it. However,
[00:02:09] a chancellery employee sent such invitations, and as journalists
[00:02:12] write, the foundation was created by people who worked in state
[00:02:16] treasury companies during the rule of Law and Justice and
[00:02:20] sit on councils that President Karol Nawrocki appointed.
[00:02:23] It's hard for me to imagine that
[00:02:26] and only Law and Justice did not the chancellery doesn't know that someone is organizing a paid meeting with the president, even if it
[00:02:30] wasn't directly organized by the chancellery, although we are finding out that a chancellery
[00:02:34] employee sent it from his email, you can see the name,
[00:02:37] surname,
[00:02:40] well, in the email, despite that, I can't
[00:02:43] imagine a situation in which the chancellery, even if it didn't organize
[00:02:47] it, doesn't know that someone is organizing a meeting with the president. Well, that sounds
[00:02:50] completely unserious. There is
[00:02:53] a price list, there are meetings, not cheap, I admit, but I understand that this
[00:02:57] face-to-face meeting was
[00:03:01] the most expensive option. Well, it sounds
[00:03:04] completely unserious, in fact, it's a disgrace.
[00:03:07] For the rest of this conversation, I invite you to TVP
[00:03:10] info.
[00:03:16] Let's also say that this whole matter arose
[00:03:20] at a time when the president is in the United States, he is there for
[00:03:24] the occasion of the UN General Assembly, he is to
[00:03:27] deliver a speech and at the same time he is to take part in such an
[00:03:31] event, the Polish American Economic Summit, organized
[00:03:34] precisely by the aforementioned foundation. Is
[00:03:38] combining such meetings, I ask you, because you were
[00:03:41] the deputy head of President Komorowski's cabinet, is
[00:03:45] combining such meetings organized by
[00:03:48] private foundations and a trip to represent the country at
[00:03:52] the UN forum standard? I have not encountered
[00:03:55] anything like this, to monetize contact with the president in this way. I
[00:04:00] know that former presidents
[00:04:03] often give, they go on
[00:04:07] lectures abroad, and these are paid lectures, it's like that all over
[00:04:10] the world. There are also charity events and auctions where
[00:04:13] you can bid on a meeting or dinner, for example, with
[00:04:17] the prime minister, with the president, there is nothing strange about that. However,
[00:04:21] a situation in which you can buy a meeting with
[00:04:24] the president, I understand, to discuss any topic, for example, issues of
[00:04:27] pardon or vetoing... a specific law that is, for
[00:04:31] example, inconvenient for a given group, well, that
[00:04:34] already sounds truly alarming. Madam
[00:04:37] MP, let's move on now to what happened
[00:04:40] in the party, namely the convention.
[00:04:43] You presented at the conference, it was a program conference.
[00:04:47] Yes, a program conference. We basically presented a manifesto, not
[00:04:50] a program, because by November 7th we will have a congress where
[00:04:54] we will present the exact program, so it was a kind of, you could say,
[00:04:58] a preview, but yes, we lifted the veil... of secrecy and some of our
[00:05:01] postulates, our offer for our voters was presented
[00:05:05] today. And what do you think will be the hook that will attract
[00:05:08] voters to a party that, let's face it, does not enjoy
[00:05:11] such support in the polls? The latest CBOS poll is only
[00:05:15] 0.1%.
[00:05:17] We are a new, new and old group, because we merged with
[00:05:21] one of the oldest political parties in Poland. We have
[00:05:24] proposals for young people, we have proposals for pensioners, for entrepreneurs,
[00:05:28] but of the interesting ones, which
[00:05:31] proposals and such safeguards, there
[00:05:35] are two. For me, it is a veto for the veto. This is an answer to the situation
[00:05:38] we now have in the country. President Nawrocki blocked
[00:05:41] and vetoed over 40 laws. This burdens
[00:05:45] the state budget, it costs us a lot, but above all, it
[00:05:48] costs citizens who, as in the case of the status of the closest
[00:05:51] person, simply still do not have
[00:05:55] their fundamental rights.
[00:05:59] We created such a veto for the veto. Of course, this requires
[00:06:02] a constitutional change, but we want to talk about
[00:06:05] it. A veto should be a kind of
[00:06:08] safeguard, not an exaggerated ego of the president, like what
[00:06:12] we have now. A president who spitefully
[00:06:16] vetoes the government, simply vetoing one law after another,
[00:06:19] really harms citizens.
[00:06:21] We want to prevent this, so that
[00:06:25] no one, even in the constitution, this is a truly great challenge and
[00:06:29] a need.
[00:06:34] in parliament, so it's a bit of wishful thinking, but
[00:06:38] important and needs to be discussed, because such a situation as it is
[00:06:40] now, where one uses it for one's own
[00:06:44] political ends, practicing veto politics
[00:06:47] is very harmful. The second issue, and the second is related to
[00:06:51] the discussion about two-term limits, because we talked about
[00:06:54] whether we are for or against maintaining two terms. The
[00:06:58] Civic Coalition wants to abandon it. The idea came up,
[00:07:02] yes, that after all, since we are talking about local government officials, why
[00:07:06] shouldn't we also talk about parliamentarians? Besides,
[00:07:09] I'll be honest, when I read comments even on social
[00:07:12] media, the argument very often appeared: start with
[00:07:16] yourselves. Well, we want to start. I see absolutely nothing wrong with
[00:07:20] term limits in parliament. It's not
[00:07:23] a lifelong profession. I think that letting
[00:07:26] fresh air into parliament is good. These three terms
[00:07:30] follow one after another, meaning these 12
[00:07:33] years, where such a member of parliament will already have experience, will be able to
[00:07:36] use it, and on the other hand, will be able to continue
[00:07:40] and complete specific projects during these 12
[00:07:44] years. This is a really good solution. Now, let's
[00:07:47] go back to the events in the Sejm last
[00:07:50] week. Your former boss, Szymon
[00:07:54] Hołownia, because your party originated
[00:07:57] from Polska 2050, which broke
[00:08:00] up after a new leader
[00:08:03] was elected, became the head of the
[00:08:06] parliamentary club, meaning he has a cumulation, he holds the position
[00:08:10] of deputy marshal and head of the club.
[00:08:14] Precisely, how do you assess it, why does he need that position?
[00:08:18] I don't know, I don't know that. That's
[00:08:22] a question for Marshal Szymon Hołownia. I don't know what
[00:08:25] his political plans are either, because I can
[00:08:29] only guess based on media
[00:08:31] reports, but also well, I must say that over the last few years
[00:08:34] Marshal Hołownia has often changed his mind, one might
[00:08:38] say he changed his mind at the speed of light sometimes, so...
[00:08:42] I don't know and I'm not up to date, I don't know what his current idea is, whether
[00:08:46] it's to go abroad, probably not, probably he wants to stay and
[00:08:49] build,
[00:08:51] well, to remain head of the club, that's one question, but also of the
[00:08:54] party? And does he want to, could this be a prelude
[00:08:58] to him joining the government, because there was talk that perhaps
[00:09:01] in recent weeks, I mean, it was talked about earlier too, but the last few weeks were the conversation
[00:09:05] about Marshal Hołownia potentially joining
[00:09:08] the government, first of all, such
[00:09:11] a proposal. After he ceased to be marshal, it was there, and the
[00:09:15] marshal did not
[00:09:18] take advantage of it. I understand that now he might have changed his mind and be
[00:09:21] interested, I don't know, one should ask Marshal directly.
[00:09:25] Is it good, well, it depends really on
[00:09:29] what ministry he would represent, because simply
[00:09:33] joining the government for the sake of the
[00:09:35] deputy prime minister's seat, well, we've already had such a saga
[00:09:38] and soap opera with the deputy prime minister for Ms. Katarzyna Pełczyńska.
[00:09:43] We were tired, most of all the citizens, we wouldn't want to repeat that.
[00:09:47] I understand that if there were such an idea at all, then Marshal Hołownia would have
[00:09:51] some plan, some idea,
[00:09:54] he would represent one of the ministries, and if he were to become
[00:09:57] deputy prime minister, it would be for
[00:10:00] specific matters, not just for the seat itself. However, I won't
[00:10:03] arrange the government for the Prime Minister, I leave that
[00:10:07] entirely in his hands. Well, but it was precisely about Marshal
[00:10:10] Hołownia pulling in people from his
[00:10:13] club, and perhaps also from your club, from
[00:10:17] the center, to show, "I have such an army behind me from both
[00:10:21] sides." He's trying to gather that. That's what's in...
[00:11:34] In any case, I see nothing wrong with discussing different
[00:11:37] scenarios, just as in 2023 we decided on a coalition with
[00:11:41] PSL, creating a third way. It ended in success. The project
[00:11:44] ran its course. Will we go with someone, or
[00:11:48] will we go in a coalition with several, with one
[00:11:51] group? It's too early to talk about it yet.
[00:11:55] We simply haven't had such discussions yet, but we are prepared, and every
[00:11:58] party should do this, regardless of whether it has 1% or
[00:12:02] 40%, to work in such a way,
[00:12:05] assuming that it will run independently in the elections, and we are
[00:12:08] acting that way. Here's another new situation from the Sejm last
[00:12:12] week: the new Deputy Marshal Marcin
[00:12:15] Horała, meaning Mateusz Morawiecki got his way; he has
[00:12:18] his own deputy marshal. He doesn't have him, he has him
[00:12:22] thanks to the fact that the coalition supported, the ruling coalition
[00:12:25] supported this candidacy. Is this
[00:12:28] a defeat for Jarosław Kaczyński, and what exactly
[00:12:31] is Donald Tusk playing at by supporting his political
[00:12:35] opponent? Well, definitely a defeat, because
[00:12:38] this position of deputy marshal for Law and
[00:12:40] Justice lay dormant for the last three years.
[00:12:43] It lay dormant, it was a vacancy that awaited a candidate
[00:12:47] from the opposition,
[00:12:51] decide on it, because they stubbornly proposed... Mrs. Witek every
[00:12:55] time. In turn, the October 15 coalition
[00:12:59] did not agree to this. We said
[00:13:03] openly, we will vote for a deputy marshal from Law and
[00:13:06] Justice on condition that it is not Mrs. Witek, because Mrs.
[00:13:10] Witek, as marshal, broke the law, broke
[00:13:14] the Sejm rules, there is no consent for such a
[00:13:17] deputy marshal. But at the last minute, Jarosław Kaczyński changed
[00:13:20] the candidate, but it was at the last minute, knowing that in
[00:13:23] a moment, well, the Development
[00:13:26] Plus party would put forward its candidate. Three years ago, no one
[00:13:30] could have predicted that there would be a split in PiS,
[00:13:33] but now there is. We decided, I'm talking about
[00:13:36] our parliamentary club, the Center, to vote for Marcin
[00:13:39] Horała, for several reasons, also because
[00:13:43] it was Law and Justice and Chairman Kaczyński who in 2015
[00:13:47] blocked the deputy marshal for the full-fledged parliamentary
[00:13:50] club, which was PSL, having over
[00:13:53] 15 deputies, yet they did not receive
[00:13:56] a deputy marshal. So, these are such
[00:14:00] unparliamentary behaviors, which, well, not only once,
[00:14:03] by the way,
[00:14:05] PiS acted that way many times, and now, well,
[00:14:09] they were late. That position waited for three years, now it has been
[00:14:13] taken by the opposition, but still
[00:14:16] not a candidate from Law and Justice. You mentioned the president's
[00:14:19] vetoes. The Sejm failed to overturn the president's
[00:14:22] veto regarding the law on the status of the closest
[00:14:26] person. Will there still be a return to civil partnerships in this
[00:14:29] Sejm term in any form? I deeply
[00:14:32] regret that. Two million couples living in
[00:14:36] informal relationships have been waiting for their rights for
[00:14:40] years, and unfortunately, they haven't gotten those rights. And let me just remind
[00:14:43] you, this draft law was already a very truncated draft
[00:14:47] law. For me, it's just the beginning, but I'm glad it
[00:14:50] came out of the Sejm, I was glad, perhaps, that it came out of
[00:14:53] the Sejm, because that was... that was the minimum
[00:14:56] guaranteed rights for these couples. Here, I must
[00:15:00] say, the PSL deputies,
[00:15:03] the most conservative group in the coalition,
[00:15:06] sat with us on this extraordinary committee that
[00:15:09] was formed precisely for
[00:15:12] this law. We talked, we managed to work out some common
[00:15:16] solution, so it's clear that discussion does make sense and
[00:15:19] brings results. Unfortunately, the president misled
[00:15:23] everyone, because during the campaign he said: that he would support such a project
[00:15:27] on the status of the closest person, if it did not equate this institution with
[00:15:30] marriage. This did not equate it, yet the president vetoed the law,
[00:15:34] a great pity, because he said during the campaign after
[00:16:07] this Friday we voted through changes in
[00:16:11] the committees, in the composition of the committees. I will be on this committee, I feel
[00:16:15] that we owe this to our female voters who went to the polls in such large numbers in
[00:16:19] 2023 and we promised
[00:16:22] changes to this law. I am glad that I will be on this committee and I will really
[00:16:26] talk to everyone who is on this committee and I will do everything
[00:16:30] in my power to persuade colleagues
[00:16:33] to pass this law. The laws that are...
[00:16:37] came out of the Sejm, certainly the necessary
[00:16:40] minimum. This necessary minimum is little, but it's always the first
[00:16:44] step. This is a law that repairs, restores
[00:16:48] what was there before this disgraceful court ruling,
[00:16:52] but also decriminalizes
[00:16:54] aid in abortion. Madam
[00:16:58] MP, one last question. Today, a march on the streets of
[00:17:01] Warsaw, supporting Grzegorz Braun. The European Parliament last
[00:17:05] week lifted.
[00:17:45] actually, from the public space, from the media space, because he not
[00:17:48] only harms, he is simply dangerous. Thank you very much.
[00:17:51] Today's guest on Question of the Day was
[00:17:55] MP Aleksandra Leo, Center Union. I
[00:17:59] invite you now to the special report by Bianka
[00:18:02] Mikołajewska.