The guest of Radio Wnet is Professor Mariusz Miąsko, professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Warsaw. also an expert who specializes in military affairs in the broad sense of security. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Editor. Hello everyone. On Friday, Poland signed an agreement with the European Commission on financing armaments from the SAFE instrument. We have a green light for this credit line of 43, over 43 billion euros, or over 180 billion zlotys. And we already have information that Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa is accelerating the contracts after Poland signed this agreement. We are all wondering how these key contracts will be implemented, what exactly will happen here, and whether there is a risk, for example, of increasing prices for things, for equipment, that we will have to buy anyway. Professor, how do you assess these risks here? Is this a historic opportunity for our defense industry, or is it just a bit of chaos and haste? Oh, Madam Editor, here I must, so to speak, refer to your thesis in the first sentence that Poland signed the agreement. This is, I would say, a bold thesis. A bold thesis. I believe, and I say this as a lawyer, that this contract was signed by two physical gentlemen, Mr. Kosiniak Kamycz and Mr. Domański. Um, I absolutely do not share the view that this agreement was signed by the Polish state. strong arguments and I would say that at the level of assessment of the current legal status resulting from the constitution and resulting from my private and historical experiences when implementing the Polish legal system, I am talking. And here, ladies and gentlemen, we lost the voice of Professor Mariusz Miąsko for a moment. Well, yes, I said that Poland signed on Friday, the Polish government signed on Friday an agreement with the European Commission on the financing of these instruments from the program from the Sejm program. And yy I have this, Professor, because yyy because your voice was lost here for a moment. I do n't know if we can hear each other now. Yes, I hear very well and clearly all the time . Good, good. So let's go back. You say that this thesis that Poland signed it is inconsistent with you, in your opinion. Well, that's a bold thesis. I believe that this agreement was signed privately by Mr. Kosiniakych and Mr. Domański, not by the Polish state. And I have strong arguments for this, both resulting from the content of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and this part. yyy legislation, which y refers to the principles of entering international agreements, as well as from the historical part in which I personally participated in the implementation of yyy international agreements y into the system of the Polish state. As far as this part resulting from the constitution is concerned, it is obvious that two circumstances had to occur, namely that the agreement had to be ratified. there is an international agreement, the constitution requires ratification of international agreements, and secondly, the quantifier in the form of the president's consent had to be met. Neither of them occurred, and both had to occur, and cumulatively. Now let's move on to the historical part. Well, ladies and gentlemen, in Poland there are, among others, two key international agreements in force. One is AETR and the other is ATP. You don't use these abbreviations, but you all experience them. ATR applies to less than a million people in Poland, i.e. drivers who perform international transport, provide driving services or are employed on the basis of an employment contract in this field. They deliver all our products throughout Europe and they carry out transport based on this international AET agreement. There is an identical ATP agreement and we all go to the shops in the morning and buy anything from the grocery area. And all 100% of these products are implemented and transported in the formula and form of this international agreement. You must know that in both of these cases I noticed at some stage that the Polish state, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, most likely unknowingly and by accident, did not implement these international agreements, did not ratify them and had to start the ratification procedure all over again, and this procedure was carried out in this particular case, in these two cases at my request, at my request. And so it happened. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs ratified these agreements and only then did they enter into the Polish legal order. Why would it be any different in any other contract than in those cases in which I personally participated? Of course, there is no bipolarity whatsoever and there cannot be bipolarity at the level of legal regulations. It occurs only at the level of what I would call strictly political demand, temporary political demand. Therefore, I believe that this is a private contract between two people and is not a Polish contract. This is the first point. The second issue concerns a broader problem. Well, please note that we have such a narrative. Unfortunately, I mean, no, not the right-wing media, but very often it is the case that the media that they represent, yes, I have the impression that they represent the government side, invite you to participate in military broadcasts and ask such a question: what do you think, would you like money from the Sejm? Well, which general would want money from the safe, which colonel would want money at all, it's not about that, there is a safe, not a safe. Which, which, which responsible commander would say he does not want to increase the state of defense of the Polish state? Well, this is also a question addressed to citizens, because there is a narrative that Poland cannot afford to reject PLN 180 billion. This is also the case here, but the problem is that the game is played with such a cluster in a very inelegant way and dangerous for the functioning of the Polish state. You play with that tooth, right? to say intellectual, that is, the general is asked whether he would like to have more equipment that would serve defense, so obviously he answers that he would like to have more. Well, what general wouldn't want to have more, but at the same time it contradicts the information that in such a case we have to sign the safe because we have no other alternative. Firstly, as far as we know, the president presented a different financing alternative, and secondly, we need to determine to what extent this structure and this formula is financially beneficial for us, especially since not all European Union countries have benefited from this formula. Well, this is a fundamental thing, but here we are reaching a little bit, I would say a deeper problem, because why is this social discussion that has been going on for several weeks now about whether an international agreement can be implemented in this or that way, whether the government's actions are legal or illegal, even possible? After all, theoretically it should be the case that an average journalist, a free journalist, should look into the constitution and should read what the resolution of this legal problem is . It doesn't have to be here, we don't have to involve such great constitutional figures as Professor Ryszard Piotrowski or other outstanding constitutionalists to decide on such matters, because the law should, in principle, be written in such a way that the Prime Minister, who is a historian by training , is not a lawyer in this particular case. Besides, there is a tradition in Poland that prime ministers are historians for a reason. Professor, how about reading these regulations yourself, like another minister? I have to interrupt you here for a moment. We'll try, because sometimes it happens that some hooligans mess something up there, or maybe the weather, a little rain, but this rain is needed because it's dry everywhere, but it's interrupting our connection. Therefore, we will try to call you not via WhatsApp but in another way. Y and I hope that in a moment this connection will be more stable. And in the meantime, I will give you some more information. Let me start with the fact that it is 11:21 on the clocks, and I will move on to information related to our topic, i.e. the Safe program. The matter of the advance payment from the Sejm. The deputy head of the Ministry of National Defense announced the potential date of its payment. Um, Minister Paweł Zalewski announced today in Brussels that Poland should expect to receive an advance payment from the Sejf defense program in the coming days. He announced that he would talk in Brussels about the safe having its second version. And what amounts should we expect, in terms of whether or what part should we expect. Here, as the Minister said, we assume that in the coming days it will be 15% of the entire budget, which means that first of all, the European Commission will pay an advance payment of EUR 6.5 billion . And also, as the Minister announced, these talks will continue here. How should the European Union continue to implement its tasks in the field of defence? Well, the Save program is an extremely important topic, ladies and gentlemen. He will also return to Radio Fnet today. I invite you on behalf of Magdalena Uchaniuk. After 12:00 there will be a representative of the Armaments Agency, who will also talk about the details of this Safe program. And now we return to the conversation. Professor Mariusz Miąsko. Are we hearing each other? Yes, I can hear very clearly. We do too now, Professor. Well then, let's continue then. Well, dear editor, ladies and gentlemen, this is what is happening now, this hooligan dance that has been going on for several weeks, is nothing more than the aftermath of a larger systemic problem in the Polish state, which comes down to the way key Polish laws are written, including the Polish constitution and the entire , one might say entire range, because not all of them, of key Polish laws. They were written in such a way that later law professors and constitutionalists sit down and are very often not sure what they mean, what the individual parts, contents, phrases mean. We often say that tokens are at the semantic level or at the semiotic level of the constitution. And there are two such cases. We have already discussed one there, namely the case of the Sejm, where many people wonder why the Prime Minister, why the ministers are unable to read the content of the constitution or the content of other laws that specify how international agreements should or should not be ratified. And of course, on the one hand, this may be a matter of political nature, simply a need, a political decision, but on the other hand, since this has been something that has been repeated, one could say for years, or even decades, this heterogeneity in the interpretation of these provisions, especially the constitution, then perhaps we should start to wonder whether this isn't a deeper problem, whether it isn't a problem with the way the constitution of the Republic of Poland was created. Identical problem. Mhm. Yes. I'm sorry to interrupt you here, but I really want you to say a few words about the proposal, because these problems exist and we all, as a society, can already see that this is a huge challenge, but you know, there was such a presentation at the Warsaw University of Technology , right, I think it was in March, so quite recently. And is there any specific proposal? Yes, for many years, in fact for 16 years, we have been cooperating as two scientific teams. I represent the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Warsaw and Professor Marek Krokewicz represents the Wrocław University of Science and Technology. Um, for 16 years we have been working on changing the structure of the legal system, starting from the constitution through all other legal acts, changing the methodology and leading to the world's first deterministic system of legal interpretation and semantic representation of law. This may not sound very friendly, but it basically comes down to this: whether you are going to be a prime minister, a minister, or an ordinary citizen of any level and any education. By reading the content of the provision, we will know in advance the scope of the decision, because this is fundamentally necessary for us. On May 6, I think, the European Court of Human Rights, as you know, issued such a protective measure in a case concerning judges. As for this issue, there has been a long-standing dispute in Poland. There are professors who are unable to discuss among themselves and are unable to clearly determine whether the judges were appointed correctly or whether they were not appointed correctly without the signature and approval of the president. And this state of affairs must end. And we actually proposed, as a result of our scientific work, these two academic centers or professors representing, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, professors and teams representing these two academic centers. We have proposed a new solution for a new legal system unique on a global scale and we are actually currently being invited and presenting this system at many academic centers in Poland and abroad, including in Asia. We are in the middle of such a series of presentations and I think it is high time we started talking openly about the need to change the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. I know that politicians, when we, as representatives of the scientific community, talk about this with representatives of political circles, the politicians say that it cannot be done. This cannot happen because there is currently no mathematical construct that would allow it. But ladies and gentlemen, we, the citizens, must force the creation and development of a new Constitution of the Republic of Poland. because we absolutely need it. It is currently written, not only the constitution, but in particular the constitution and the laws are written in such a language that allows for a variety of decisions with the same content and the same context. This obviously cannot be the case, because it attacks our fundamental rights of human comfort. Well, it cannot be that, when reading the same provision, three judges make three different decisions. And besides, you see , we have evidence for this thesis that this is how the legal system functions, that is, non-deterministically, unstable, we say stochastically, in other words, randomly, there are famous decisions that have outraged public opinion in recent weeks. True? And at the same time they also weaken the Polish state. That's why it's very important for experts and practitioners to deal with such matters, and we're glad that there's awareness among scientists and lawyers, and something is starting to happen here. Professor, I think we will return to this topic, because this crisis in the Polish justice system, this constitutional crisis, will certainly not be resolved quickly, so naturally we will also comment on these matters. And here I would like to thank you very much for the interview. Professor Mariusz Miąsko, professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University, also an expert in security, defense, and international politics, was a guest on NET radio. Thank you for the interview. Thank you very much.