The perfect leader and strategist of the civilian Coalition rather insolent of Germany Klaus Bachmann on the "Berliner Zeitung" page called on Tusk to take over the NBP force and 260 billion that are there to finance the debt.
Economic leader of the left prof. Grzegorz Kolodko, erstwhile finance minister last year spoke and finasing the army from the NBP reserves and was listened to with attention: Instead of indebting the state and raising taxes, it's better to pay for the arms of the NBP money.
President Karol Nawrocki alternatively of SAFE proposes POLSKI SAFE 0%. In place of a debt from the EU in euro, the NBP will transfer 185 billion gold from NPB funds to the Polish Army!
And then there was the motor ride... That we're moving the gold reserves, that the NBP is going to lose, that it's against the Constitution, etc.
However, the proposal is that the NBP, having profits from the last 30 months and gold reserves, would launch the arms financing mechanics (PLN 185 billion) without borrowing from the state budget — an alternate to the EU SAFE loan. Nawrocki himself stresses that this requires the engagement of 3 parties: the President, the NBP and the Government, within the existing legal mechanisms.
What does Article 220(2) of the Constitution say?
This provision reads: ‘The budgetary act must not supply for the payment of a budget deficit by making commitments to the central bank.’
This prohibition applies only to 1 very circumstantial situation: a provision in the budget law that would cover the budget deficit by lending to the government by the NBP.
Gametych mistake — 3 levels
1. Subject-matter: Nawrocki and Glapinski's proposal does not apply to the budget bill. This is simply a separate financial mechanics launched outside the conventional state budget. Article 220(2) only regulates the content of the budget law — it does not restrict any financial relation between the State and the NBP.
2. Scope: The provision prohibits the coverage of the budget deficit by commitments to the central bank. However, the proposal involves utilizing the profits and reserves of the NBP — not creating a budget debt. This is simply a fundamental difference: it is not about making a commitment by the budget, it is about planning the funds of the central bank already being developed.
3. Legal mechanism: Nawrocki pointed out that the plan is to be implemented “in the framework of mechanisms in the Republic of Poland” — which indicates the request to make an appropriate legal basis not necessarily in breach of Article 220(2).
Summary
Gierty quotes a recipe that prohibits something another than what is proposed. Article 220(2) blocks the entry in the budget of the entry: "We cover the deficit with a debt from the NBP". On the another hand, Nawrocki and Glapiński propose a separate, non-budget mechanics based on the profits of the central bank. It can be debated whether specified an thought is practically feasible, economically viable, or requiring legislative amendments — but recourse to Article 220(2) as a direct ban on this peculiar proposal is simply wrong.
No, we don't decision currency reserves or gold. The NBP generates immense profits (more than PLN 185 billion in the last 30 months from monetary operations). Polish SAFE 0% is simply an immediate, deliberate transfer of these profits straight to the army – without interest, without expanding debt and without EU conditions. usually this money goes to the budget (95%), here is an accelerated, dedicated defence version. No losses, full sovereignty. I realize the confusion, but it is not a debt or a sale – it is national money for the Polish purpose.
