Poland's Leader Wins Confidence Vote in Parliament
Prime Minister Donald Tusk last week called the vote for legislators to endorse his government, hoping to reassert his authority after the victory of a political opponent, Karol Nawrocki, a nationalist historian, in a presidential election this month.
In the vote, 243 lawmakers voted in favor of Mr. Tusk and 210 against, giving him a majority in the 460-member lower house of Parliament.
Speaking to Parliament on Wednesday, Mr. Tusk acknowledged that Mr. Nawrocki's win in the presidential vote would create challenges 'greater than we expected.' But, referring to the president's limited and largely ceremonial duties, he insisted that the result of that election 'in no way reduces our responsibility, our duties or the scope of our power or competences.'
Mr. Tusk's victory Wednesday in the confidence vote is a blow for the Law and Justice party, which had been hoping for a possible return to power in the event of early elections. A vote against Mr. Tusk's government would have required him to resign after about only 18 months in office.
Bruised by Mr. Nawrocki's victory in the presidential poll and under pressure from Law and Justice to resign, Mr. Tusk last week acknowledged the 'gravity of the moment,' but, gambling on a confidence vote, he insisted that 'we do not intend to take a single step back.'
Mr. Nawrocki, like Andrzej Duda, the departing president, is closely aligned with Law and Justice, and his victory over a liberal candidate backed by Mr. Tusk is likely to harden the stalemate between a presidency and a government pulling in opposite directions.
The Polish president has no say in setting policy but has veto power over legislation passed by Parliament, a prerogative that has hobbled Mr. Tusk's government to carry out its agenda. That includes repairing relations with the European Union and reversing changes Law and Justice made during its time in power that compromised the independence of the judiciary and all but banned abortion.
Law and Justice lost its parliamentary majority in a 2023 election, but the coalition of legislators that Mr. Tusk put together to form a government has been a fractious alliance made up of liberals, centrists and conservatives that shared little common ground other than opposition to Law and Justice.
Anatol Magdziarz contributed reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Hungarian Foreign Minister on his Country's Agenda and Ukraine's Bid to Join the E.U.
"Hungarian people have been paying the price of this war for too long time now, although we don't have any kind of responsibility." Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó on Hungary's agenda, and Ukraine's bid to join the E.U.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Ion Iliescu, Who Steered Romania After Revolution, Dies at 95
Ion Iliescu, Romania's first post-Communist president, who oversaw the country's transition to democracy after the overthrow of the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989 but whose reputation was later tarnished by his own authoritarian tendencies and by charges of brutality over his role in the revolution, died on Tuesday in Bucharest. He was 95. His death, in a hospital, was announced by the Romanian government. He was reported to have been admitted to the hospital in June and underwent surgery for lung cancer. Known as 'Mr. Smile' by many Romanians because of his perpetual grin, the avuncular Mr. Iliescu served three terms as president and was the pre-eminent figure in the country's first 15 years after Communism fell. He played a leading role in the revolution of 1989 that toppled the widely detested Mr. Ceausescu, even as some critics accused him of cleaving to the authoritarianism of the old regime that he claimed to abhor. In 2018, Romanian prosecutors charged Mr. Iliescu with crimes against humanity, accusing him of having failed to prevent civilian deaths during the bloody revolution — more than 1,100 died, largely after Mr. Ceausescu's ouster — and for spreading misinformation through the media that sowed panic. Mr. Iliescu denied the charges at the time, calling the move 'a farce.' The case later stalled, though there was a renewed attempt last year to start a new investigation. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The EU AI Act aims to create a level playing field for AI innovation. Here's what it is.
The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act, known as the EU AI Act, has been described by the European Commission as 'the world's first comprehensive AI law.' After years in the making, it is progressively becoming a part of reality for the 450 million people living in the 27 countries that comprise the EU. The EU AI Act, however, is more than a European affair. It applies to companies both local and foreign, and it can affect both providers and deployers of AI systems; the European Commission cites examples of how it would apply to a developer of a CV screening tool, and to a bank that buys that tool. Now, all of these parties have a legal framework that sets the stage for their use of AI. Why does the EU AI Act exist? As usual with EU legislation, the EU AI Act exists to make sure there is a uniform legal framework applying to a certain topic across EU countries — the topic this time being AI. Now that the regulation is in place, it should 'ensure the free movement, cross-border, of AI-based goods and services' without diverging local restrictions. With timely regulation, the EU seeks to create a level playing field across the region and foster trust, which could also create opportunities for emerging companies. However, the common framework that it has adopted is not exactly permissive: Despite the relatively early stage of widespread AI adoption in most sectors, the EU AI Act sets a high bar for what AI should and shouldn't do for society more broadly. What is the purpose of the EU AI Act? According to European lawmakers, the framework's main goal is to 'promote the uptake of human centric and trustworthy AI while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including democracy, the rule of law and environmental protection, to protect against the harmful effects of AI systems in the Union, and to support innovation.' Yes, that's quite a mouthful, but it's worth parsing carefully. First, because a lot will depend on how you define 'human centric' and 'trustworthy' AI. And second, because it gives a good sense of the precarious balance to maintain between diverging goals: innovation vs. harm prevention, as well as uptake of AI vs. environmental protection. As usual with EU legislation, again, the devil will be in the details. How does the EU AI Act balance its different goals? To balance harm prevention against the potential benefits of AI, the EU AI Act adopted a risk-based approach: banning a handful of 'unacceptable risk' use cases; flagging a set of 'high-risk' uses calling for tight regulation; and applying lighter obligations to 'limited risk' scenarios. Has the EU AI Act come into effect? Yes and no. The EU AI Act rollout started on August 1, 2024, but it will only come into force through a series of staggered compliance deadlines. In most cases, it will also apply sooner to new entrants than to companies that already offer AI products and services in the EU. The first deadline came into effect on February 2, 2025, and focused on enforcing bans on a small number of prohibited uses of AI, such as untargeted scraping of internet or CCTV for facial images to build up or expand databases. Many others will follow, but unless the schedule changes, most provisions will apply by mid-2026. What changed on August 2, 2025? Since August 2, 2025, the EU AI Act applies to 'general-purpose AI models with systemic risk.' GPAI models are AI models trained with a large amount of data, and that can be used for a wide range of tasks. That's where the risk element comes in. According to the EU AI Act, GPAI models can come with systemic risks; 'for example, through the lowering of barriers for chemical or biological weapons development, or unintended issues of control over autonomous [GPAI] models.' Ahead of the deadline, the EU published guidelines for providers of GPAI models, which include both European companies and non-European players such as Anthropic, Google, Meta, and OpenAI. But since these companies already have models on the market, they will also have until August 2, 2027, to comply, unlike new entrants. Does the EU AI Act have teeth? The EU AI Act comes with penalties that lawmakers wanted to be simultaneously 'effective, proportionate and dissuasive' — even for large global players. Details will be laid down by EU countries, but the regulation sets out the overall spirit — that penalties will vary depending on the deemed risk level — as well as thresholds for each level. Infringement on prohibited AI applications leads to the highest penalty of 'up to €35 million or 7% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year (whichever is higher).' The European Commission can also inflict fines of up to €15 million or 3% of annual turnover on providers of GPAI models. How fast do existing players intend to comply? The voluntary GPAI code of practice, including commitments such as not training models on pirated content, is a good indicator of how companies may engage with the framework law until forced to do so. In July 2025, Meta announced it wouldn't sign the voluntary GPAI code of practice meant to help such providers comply with the EU AI Act. However, Google soon after confirmed it would sign, despite reservations. Signatories so far include Aleph Alpha, Amazon, Anthropic, Cohere, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Mistral AI, and OpenAI, among others. But as we have seen with Google's example, signing does not equal a full-on endorsement. Why have (some) tech companies been fighting these rules? While stating in a blog post that Google would sign the voluntary GPAI code of practice, its president of global affairs, Kent Walker, still had reservations. 'We remain concerned that the AI Act and Code risk slowing Europe's development and deployment of AI,' he wrote. Meta was more radical, with its chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan stating in a post on LinkedIn that 'Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI.' Calling the EU's implementation of the AI Act 'overreach,' he stated that the code of practice 'introduces a number of legal uncertainties for model developers, as well as measures which go far beyond the scope of the AI Act.' European companies have expressed concerns as well. Arthur Mensch, the CEO of French AI champion Mistral AI, was part of a group of European CEOs who signed an open letter in July 2025 urging Brussels to 'stop the clock' for two years before key obligations of the EU AI Act came into force. Will the schedule change? In early July 2025, the European Union responded negatively to lobbying efforts calling for a pause, saying it would still stick to its timeline for implementing the EU AI Act. It went ahead with the August 2, 2025, deadline as planned, and we will update this story if anything changes. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
