 to everyone and welcome to the online participants in this part of the continuing Institute for European Affairs series of webinars on the future of Europe. We're very pleased to have as our speaker today, Konrad Schumanski, Minister for European Affairs in the Government of Poland. The minister was appointed to his post in March this year. Prior to that, he has held office as Secretary of State for European Affairs and prior to that was a member of the European Parliament for the Law and Justice Party for a 10-year period. He also worked in an earlier incarnation as an official in the Polish lower house, the CM. He therefore brings an exceptional amount of experience of European Union business, both at government and parliament level. And it's an experience, of course, that he will need to draw on as the European Union tackles what the minister himself has described as the most difficult negotiations in the history of the EU in the recovery phase after the pandemic. Minister Schumanski's talk today is to cover political and social challenges for Europe after the COVID-19 crisis. The minister will speak for about 20 minutes or so and is then open to questions from participants. All of this is to be on the record. For questions, participants can use the question and answer facility on the Zoom interface in order to submit them. So welcome again Minister Schumanski to the IIEA and may I welcome at the same time the participation of the Polish Ambassador to Ireland Anna Sohenska. Minister Schumanski, we look forward to your address. Thank you Peter for invitation and very kind introductory note. It's a privilege to be here somehow in an Institute of International and European Affairs spending some time before in previous incarnations in think tank community in Warsaw. I'm quite familiar with your enormous works since 1990. So it's a great honor to be online at least at your premises with your audience in Dublin. Of course it's a pity we can't be together in real terms. I hope it will be possible soon but this way of communication is of course equally important especially in this time as you mentioned complicated and quite important for the future of the EU. Every negotiation process is important for the future that's the subject but I think our future as a union isn't granted for sure for the first time in history probably and this is very very important moment. We feel this responsibility for the future because I don't need to ask that the future of the European integration future of Europe is very important for Poland and not only in terms of economic development cooperation trade integration which is very very valuable asset of integration to our to our welfare but also in political terms. European Union is a very important pillar of the unity of the West and we pay enormous attention to this unity of the West based on EU, NATO, other organizations because the world we live in isn't that secure as we used to believe. We have a lot of competitors of least if not challengers around us so we have to be careful with our own future and the future of union is very important for every European country including Poland. The post-COVID situation we experiencing right now isn't the first crisis we experienced last year. We have a cumulative crisis situation in many different angles. First of all of course the debt crisis of the 2008 you know it better than us being part of the eurozone and successfully going out of of this crisis and of course migration crisis a couple of years later not related in in terms of substance but it's quite tragic to be honest that all of those crises affected most the same group of sovereign countries. It's a tragic thing of course it is accidental maybe we could find some reasons to link those especially consequences but anyway it is a tragic fact and very important political fact for Europe which pose a question about our ability to react as a union how to define the reaction which would be relevant to the situation we have right now and of course in the same time we are still in in preparatory phase of the conference for the future of Europe. The conference was proposed before COVID of course but I think after COVID and with COVID experience and all what is related to this epidemiological experience the conference on the future is even more relevant than then before. Of course before we will offer wise advice for our own future before we will conclude our opinions about what Europe should look like. I think we should very carefully learn the lessons and we know that many different capitals or many different societies and nations learn slightly different lessons from the previous crisis but we have to continue our dialogue to understand best the situation we have right now. So before we will offer any vision of the future whatever vision it will be we have to carefully study the situation we have right now in terms of political responsibility economic consequences and so on. The COVID situation I think pose at least two different questions to the EU. First is strictly I would say narrow but we know that this is dramatic in the same time but strict medical and epidemiological questions where the responsibility of member states will stay in the same place maybe we can strengthen the coordination of our efforts that for sure would be valuable but I don't expect that in terms of health policies strictly defined health policy or even more public order or public security the responsibility will not be short with any supranational level and probably rightly so because the decisions like the decision of this year like the complete lockdown unprecedented lockdown of shops services whole society in the economy and the economy this is the experience we have in almost every single European country this sort of decision should be legitimate and the legitimacy of those decisions wouldn't be better with the with the Brussels responsibility at the first line coordination is good but the decisions especially the the fact is that different member states had quite a different situation and in different times so I think we should be rational here but in the same time we have much wider spectrum of responsibility which is a question of economic consequences of the of the lockdowns of the epidemiological situation in Europe and here European Union is and should be a principal player because this is about economic governance it's about transfer as we know today and here it's hard to find any better solution like the European solution of the for this this sort of situation of course I I think we shouldn't believe that this pandemic is the last one so we should be resilient we should be prepared for the next because according to scientific research and scientific findings we have to be prepared for the next this sort of situation for for for the moment it's rather unusual unprecedented for sure but it is probably not the last time so it's it's a high time to learn it's a high time to find and select the best instruments we should have in our hands in terms of public order I already said I don't expect that Europe will play more important role in questions like like public order on the ground but we shouldn't reduce this situation only to this sort of thing there are much more important questions especially now we see it very clearly we have a lot of much more important questions coming from the economic part of the whole situation first of all it's of course our dependence on international trade of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment of course we advocate international trade globalization made a lot of good things also for our country but in situations like this I think it is wise to think twice on our level of dependence in pharmaceuticals and medical equipment that this is why Poland together with other European countries Germany France Denmark Belgium and Spain signed a letter to the European Commission to carefully analyze the situation of our dependency on medical equipment and and pharmaceuticals the other question a little bit wider I would say I would try to collect my remarks this way from the most strict to most general a little bit wider question is the response to economic crisis are correlated directly with the lockdown of the economy and and society and here in general we appreciate the European Commission's proposal to do something unusual I would agree and to offer extraordinary instruments to rescue the European economy for some it is huge it is very generous for sure for some 750 billions on top of normal MFF is something even unacceptable probably according to the tone we hear in some capitals from our perspective it is a minimum of relevant answer to the situation we had only during next two years we a European economy will experience an investment gap according to the European Commission up to one and a half trillion euro this is the scale of the problem we are facing so our answer should be relevant in terms of scale should be relevant in terms of time because in this specific situation time is definitely money the longer we are waiting with the response the the bill is higher the we pay more and of course we have to put attention to grants of course loans are important we already agreed to to define new instruments like sure on unemployment based on loans like the special lines in European investment bank and European stabilization mechanism it is very very valuable efforts adopted by the ecofin ministers I hope effectively implemented soon but the loans are good for liquidity question that in case of member states where the problem of debt is already too high offering loans is isn't relevant is is not enough we need grants only grants can really help add a value to European response to the to the crisis of course everything will be based on borrowing capacity of the union which is right choice this is the the real European answer I don't want to go into details because we have a lot of issues to be discussed and negotiated of course allocations schemes the way we implement conditionalities structural reform etc we have to define it but I wanted to stress that in principle the general approach of the European commission in terms of scale in terms of timing in terms of proportion between grants and loans is is the right approach to this situation we have of course we agree that we we shouldn't create a precedent for the future we should be very firm on exceptional nature of the of the mechanism we are we are talking about right now we agree we share the opinion that we should be careful with this not only because of the legalistic interpretation of the treaties which is important but because we we we shouldn't provoke even more anti-European sentiments in some member states where the problem of debt and sharing debt is is is a question is a is a big political issue so we should be clear on this we should be clear on on the duration of the program we should be clear on the repayment scenario we should be clear on criteria etc that's for sure but we need this sort of of reaction apart from the mf mff of course we hear in the same time we hear a lot of that's about the national contribution to the european budget this is not the first time every time we we sit to talk about mf we hear that the contributions are too high especially from some countries where the net position is is negative i think it is very short-sighted it i think it's a it's a budgetary populism having in mind that the real benefits coming from the european integration is much much higher average seven times higher than the national contribution the the trade integration all benefits coming from the from the single market are much much higher for every single country not only for those who like poland are beneficial also in terms of of direct transfer direct transfers and not the essence of european economic cooperation the essence is the single market and the and the fruels should remember about it also in terms of public communication with their own societies because the one one day your society will start to believe that net position is everything about union this is the day when you may when you are making a step toward another exit this is a british experience exactly misleading interpretation of the of the budgetary obligations but we understand that that's why we as poland propose to be ambitious on new genuine own resources we believe that union should be or could be based much more than on national contributions on on genuine own resources like the financial transaction tax or digital tax single market levy or carbon border adjustment mechanism as proposed last month i think we should be much more ambitious and this is my advice european commission to be ambitious in preparation of the strict model of the own resources what we can't accept the known resources debate is the the model which would create a situation where poorer economies like central european but not only would pay proportionally more than the richest countries in the eu the very good example is of course ets based on resources quite devill we are happy to see that on the least of the last least of the european commission and we have much more than this proposition and i think we should be serious about it also to reduce the national contributions so much controversial for some for some countries but the redistribution and the financial aspect are not the only tools we have in our hands as a european union to make our resilience stronger i would like to mention just two profound importance for the crisis and and generally for the for the future economic welfare of the of the union first of all is of course single market single market isn't finished yet we have an almost delay in preparation of the full integration of the service market it's a pity because this is the only corner among the four the only corner which is not finished and not developed enough we should tap this potential for our own good it's a potential for for everyone and of course we should do more on digital market because here the integration of the regulatory regime could create an added value for for everyone the other thing which is very important from our perspective now especially post-covid is state aid and competition law was we fully accept we understand the enormous need to put unprecedented sum of money to economies of member states this is a need we we share we do it we have one of the highest proportion of the of the transfer to economy to save them to save labor market to to save jobs to to save sustainability of our society to to combat crisis in the in the end but we should be careful about the state dumping as we see the the proportions right now it is a warning because the level of state aid in member states is is different and half of them going to one country and so of course the capacities are quite different and i think european commission is fully aware about this problem but we want to continue this debate maybe the recovery and resilience instruments could be a kind of compensation for the countries which are not in a position to offer such an enormous money to to economy to find a level playing field in terms of state aid of course when we are talking about the future we shouldn't concentrate only on on problems we have right now the future of euro depends on i think on on some other aspect i just wanted to to flag it point by point i believe that this new european consensus we need this european consensus because we experience a lot of toxic sometimes stressful situations so we need a brighter horizon and this new european consensus could be based on of course recovery and resiliency instruments together with the mff based on investment policies like cohesion but also equally important role of the common agricultural policy which is not only about sustainability of the of the farmers and the society it is also about our food security it is also about climate change so we stress the importance of those two treaty-based policies in the mff and negotiation the other the second one is of course migration and as you know we should close this long-term debate and sometimes toxic to be honest we should concentrate on initiatives which can unite us i think we already did a lot in common efforts to to to secure our borders especially in in those parts where the resilience is lower not because of the member states failures but because of the geography i mean a maritime more borders which are much more complicated to defend than than the others. Poland is a country which defends and secure the the european border external border the longest after philden is pretty aware how important it is but we want to to base this this efforts generally on external aspects of the migration it is not only about borders of course i don't want to go into the details not to consume all of your time about it but without any coercion in in relocation because here we see clearly that the experience of member states migratory experience of member states is different and we you can't find a one scenario which would fit all member states because of the historical and say social very deep in fact a deeply rooted profile let's say the the third thing among the new european consensus four pillars will be of course climate where we need a compromise which would be ambitious we have no doubt that we should be ambitious about climate transformation but in the same time we have to recognize different starting point and we have to recognize that the burden should be assured and in a way which would be called fair and and just we did a lot we made the steps towards the the situation where the compromise could be agreed but but we are not still there and we are we are close and of course last but not least on visual single market which is sometimes somehow at least in narrative somehow abandoned treat treat this is something granted of course it is granted it is a backbone of integration but it doesn't mean that this is less important i think this is one of the most important aspect of european integration it gives us a lot and it could give us even more that's why we should be ambitious on on the single market in the end such a new european consensus i believe could create a situation where europe would deliver again european output legitimization would be indisputable again and then we would come back to the situation we all probably remember very well early 2000 where the european optimism was something obvious in every single capital this mood changed a lot and it's a it's a great pity we are we are troubled by this by this picture where we see a lot of complaints about european different complaints in the north different different complaints in the south and probably the the shortest list of complaints in the central europe sometimes against the perceptions sometimes against the conventional trust but anyway the the list of complaints is a little bit too long we should reduce the list of complaints and the new european consensus based on on four pillars i mentioned would be probably helpful so we should have it in mind talking about future of europe in these days thank you and excuse me for a little bit longer probably introduction not a town minister thank you very very much for such comprehensive remarks and i also say very wise remarks on on so many of the topics may i as a chair i take the liberty of following up one area first since you are the the minister for european affairs what's your current perception of this future of europe conference the state of preparation it does seem that the european parliament is is forging ahead perhaps somewhat more rapidly than the council what's your expectation currently in relation to both the process of actually starting it but also as to the the subject matter i think the conference on the future of europe was planned as a enormous social consultations across the continent it was before covid of course so it was very easy and maybe even natural to say that we need such a direct massive experience of of talking about europe in our local communities not only capitals and not only with professionals but also with the people who are part of this project from the social point of view after covid situation is a little bit different because it's hard to imagine a real direct social interaction as it was planned at the beginning and probably the difference between parliament and the council is the fact that all governments at the moment are totally consumed with the direct covid or post-covid situations or challenges they are different the situation isn't clear enough to to say that yes now we can change the agenda and go back to the metapolitical deliberations about about europe i think this is this is the difference i i see it in our council of ministers that it's hard to catch the attention of something which is not related to this situation on the ground we study the information we try to react in a relevant Moscow relevant way and i think this is this is a problem and from my perspective of course i'm closer to this sort of experience like conference the real conference but i fully understand that we should carefully understand the the experience after covid before we will go to conclusions because this experience is different in different capitals and isn't still fully understood what we really need as a union so that's why i think we don't need to be in a hurry and but we should remember that we should draw draw conclusions for our future to be more resilient well-prepared etc thank you the first question i have is from one of the researchers at the iiea as follows darin mariarty the incoming german presidency has prioritized the issue of rule of law and protecting european values how does the polish government hope to engage with germany on this issue in the coming six months but we already engaged on these issues for a couple of years so it is nothing new also with germany because germany as our neighbor of course we are in still contact in many issues including including this and it's a huge issue of course but i would like to stress a couple of major things first of all this is not a controversy about the principle of rule of law the principle of rule of law is equally important for war soul like for berlin or or brass this is the principle of our constitution they would doubt that the the rule of law principle is governing principle of our political life this controversy is about implementation of this principle in the real ground situation in this case in specifically in case of a judiciary reform in poland i mean judiciary reform is debated in many countries probably including ireland before the new government will hold a new term and so it is nothing unusual i see the risk of double standards in in european commission's practice i would like to stress the risk at least the risk of double standards because i see that sometimes european commission is trying to criticize the legal institutions which were in place during the time of our accession and was prized by the accession teams and for many many years of our membership in the u we want to restore the same institutions from the time so it is unusual to see that exactly the same institutions are now are criticized it's it's for example it's about the organization of the ordinary courts i don't want to go into details but this is a good example another risk of double standard is of course a critical approach of european commission to institutions which are well known in other countries the example a classic example is a national council council of judiciary which is very very similar in poland like in spain and in the second to latter example didn't create any any objection or any controversy so we see that risk but in the end we believe that the legal disputes should be solved by courts not by political bodies and what we expect from the whole machinery on values and rule of law at the european level is legal certainty by the way the legal certainty is a very important aspect dimension of the rule of law itself so when we see the proposals which are not very clear in terms of legal certainty and legal consequences we are a little bit critical and but in the same time poland implemented all the judgments of the court of the european court of justice it is important to remember and i think this is the way how to solve the problem of course within the limit of of conferred competences we know that the conferral the principle of conferral sometimes trigger um quite hot debates at the european level and i think this is the case where the problem of conferred um and competences is is quite valid thank you and i have a question from someone you may know adrian palm who is now the dutch ambassador in in ireland and the master covers the same similar ground and is the first part of his question i would like to ask you about two elements only slightly touched upon in your in your minister's introduction the rule of law what has the eu poland dialogue since december 50 december 2015 brought to the polish citizens second part of his question sustainability how can we ensure that greening the economy is not seen as a threat but as an option for economic development on the rule of law i think i i i have nothing to add i try to explain our position also to dramatize this this situation because of course this situation is unusual i would agree but and but we continue this uh this quite hard dialogue in a way which is sometimes helpful in the end so i don't want to add anything on on rule of law on sustainability i touched the issue of the climate transformation that we are stick to the transformation also of the polish economy when you see the data about the energy mix and growing potential of photovoltaic for example uh doubled this year uh comparing with the predictions uh offshore winds uh on Baltic sea this is a huge potential and and also business case it which is important it is not just a regulatory action of the state it is also a business case behind which is very very promising but in the same time we have to remember that the starting point to be general the starting point of the polish economy inherited from the communist time is is is different than than for example that's why we are in a position to agree that the europe should be climate neutral in 2050 we agreed in december to this but with a clear reference that poland isn't obliged to do it in the same pace in the same um way it doesn't mean that we don't want to transform our economy just opposite we we do want to transform our economy but the scenario of transformation should be based on our economic and social reality for example the risk of energy poverty in poland is probably one of the highest in the EU so we we did a lot with the social transfers the last four or five years to um to make our society much more sustainable and more resilient to the the question of the of the poverty in general not only energy poverty but we have to be very careful so so this is why we continue dialogue with the european commission and the and the member states about the european just transition fund i think this is the right way to do it to find a mechanism which would support the best possible projects which offer the the highest reduction of CO2 and i think the projects proposed by polish regions and by polish companies by poland in the end will offer a chance to reduce the the emissions in a way which would be very significant in whole european contribution to the global private agreement obligations i i'm pretty sure we know the data for example the heating sector most most developed heating sector probably in europe and has an enormous potential to to transit into much more sustainable shape or profile but we need a realistic scenario and in this realistic scenario for example in this case gas should play much a more important role and well we we understand some countries where the gas isn't necessary i think netherland isn't a good example but for many countries transit energy fuel isn't very important in our case the transit energy fuel is is very important and this is this is gas when we find such a evolutionary scenario i think we will find a calm ground on future of climate european climate policy yeah indeed to climb it very much on the the minds of many people including researcher here at the iiea kelly and rossi asks if you could expand on your government's opposition to using revenues from the ets to fund the post-covid-19 recovery i think you've covered much of that but if there is any further detail you wish to offer in relation to that aspect of our resources no the the way european commission proposed how to form a revenue for the european budget based on revenues from the ets is is regressive in essence because it would create a situation where we proportionally would pay much more than the richest countries in the u so it is not very fair it is not just and it is impossible to defend this sort of obligation the financial obligation of country in any parliament we don't want to be just negative that's why we propose other forms of own resources i mentioned financial digital single market carbon but the ets itself was planned as an instrument to help in transition so we we we can't forget about it that we got some portions of of ets allowances to use a different way so so this is why the regressive nature of the of the of this own resources is is a problem okay i'm just turning to the external side i'm conscious that you are a minister from the country at the easternmost frontier of the union speaking to us in the westernmost part of the union i have a question here from the ambassador of george in this country george zora basbili poland as an initiator of the eastern partnership how would you evaluate the ongoing progress how successfully it's developing and how do you see the future of the partnership i think that our heads of state and government actually had an interaction on this just just a few days ago since the time of foundation of the eastern partnership i think many things happened positive things happened on european side the reaction of russia to the pro-western integration of some countries is a contrario a best argument that we did the right thing we want to open the door it doesn't mean membership at the moment but we want to create a union which would be able to take responsibility for our neighborhood we have different challenges on eastern side quite different on the southern side everything changed because i remember the 2004 five where we formed the european neighborhood policy we believed that our neighborhood will be more and more uh converged or more and more stable because the european model will be so much attractive that everyone will will join that that model and probably it could happen but because of many factors it it didn't happen it it happened quite successful in georgia and in ukraine with enormous price to be to be honest the the price the the ukrainians and georgians pay for the pro-western aspirations is something unknown for average european i would say and i think it should be taken into account as well especially in times when europeans here in the union are so reluctant to say that europe is something good so we want to develop this this project we believe that we should keep this promise we keep this responsibility and not only in in the interest of the countries of the eastern partnership but also in our own interest and there is no space for vacuum for political vacuum around our borders we know it very well now sometimes we have quite tragic examples so if europe will be not able to take responsibility in cooperation and openness not enforced and someone else will do it so so then a kind of strategic competition is something historically rooted in in this part of the world it's it's different in the south of course and the north from africa probably someone else should to make remarks about it it's it's different but in nature is more as the same if europe is not able to to do it someone else will do it at the expense of our security and at the expense of our welfare in the end because the trade integration of the region would be attractive for european union may i ask you myself as a follow-up how you see then the the evolution of the news relations with russia over the over the coming period um i just to recall that only last week the sanctions on russia in relation to the ukraine have been renewed in that part of a rolling process of of renewal they and recent report as well in relation to some of the the online digital manipulation fake news and so on has not been very um not been very helpful to creating a trustful atmosphere between east and west there so how do you see it more generally over the next period that that category of relations having in mind what europe offered the russian federation at the beginning it is very negative development because we as a union that time poland it was first year as a poland membership in the union so we were not very great believers but but we agreed that we should offer something positive to russian federation to form a pragmatic form of of relations with this great country to accept that that we are somehow neighbors and with enormous potential and and that we can form this pragmatic relations and develop pragmatic relations in many many senses but the offer was refused it's pretty clear russia since that time decided to be aggressive and first of all against the the countries of eastern bank of neighborhood but also for some against some european countries i i want to remind that the problems with estonia with laxia now we have problems even with the countries of of western europe and the interventions to put it mildly against the democratic system of of our of our states of our countries isn't an argument in favor of any relaxation of the sanction regime this is just minimum and i'm afraid we have no choice but to wait for russian federation to change its mind on on its presence in this part of the world which could take some time it's already took some time yeah but we have to change that sorry turning back to another topic that that concerns both our countries in different ways brexit concerns us of course but it concerns you and i know it's quite a well followed topic in in poland a former colleague of mine donald denham former ambassador in the service asks with the withdrawal of the u k from the EU poland is now among the top five in terms of population in the EU is poland interested in taking on a more forceful leadership role within the EU to balance franco-german dominance up to now i don't believe in in such a modeling of the situation the franco-german alliance is very important with its historical importance to the to the foundations of european integration no doubt and history plays a role in this not that as it was as it was predicted that history will not play a role so the significance of this alliance is of course important but it is it is pretty clear and i i believe that also in berlin and paris that it's impossible to project the european future only by two capitals and of course those two capitals are not in line fully in line in many many issues we saw it very clearly and just after the depth crisis where the two capitals took quite different perspective on what should happen with with the eurozone depth instability and lack of convergence of the macroeconomics of the of eurozone member states so i will i don't want to to create such a such a picture where we have to consolidate against the the franco-german alliance we we need cooperation and in europe not tensions of course the withdrawal of the uk it changes a lot and of course changes for worse from the european perspective from the polish perspective it is not i don't see any anything good in in this i understand that the brit for british people for many of them it's the right choice that it is this obvious it is it's a sovereign decision but i don't see any anything positive coming from this fact for union or for poland or for anybody else we are losing very important country of course part of the european balance in many many senses for example in regulatory policy so we we are concerned about the the possible lack of balance in the same time we are losing balance in transatlantic relations so like a few k will be troublesome for for sure that's why we are so dedicated to find any any other form of of cooperation it's a great pity that we that we can't find that form of cooperation because we you need to for this sort of tango i hope we will recreate this ambitious cooperation in the nearest future but but at the moment it doesn't look it doesn't look good it's true that from the intra-eu perspective the balance of power proposed by the lisbon treaty this this mechanism of for distribution of power proposed by the lisbon treaty was planned for the union which expands not the union which is losing any country especially such a big country like you can so it is an issue of course we we have to be careful that's why we invite member states to build consensus in place of k and v wherever possible but it's it's a political question quite different just as a subsidiary question could i ask you about the process is now of the v4 co-op at the vichy grad countries what what what are the the greatest commonalities of interest and how intensive is the process of cooperation on on EU matters in the EU you can't find two exactly the same countries that's a great value of EU it is determined by history scale experience political sensitivity political philosophy even for probably those who are much more familiar with the with the humanities would add a lot to understand better quite contemporary everyday politics but in the same time before i can say it's one of the of the best organized group around interest around common aspirations of course sometimes we have to say no like in case of migrant some aspects of migration but usually we are suggesting we are proposing positive scenarios and single market is one of the question where we can contribute the mfo debate i think we offered a lot of positive solutions i already mentioned many many of them we just adopted the common position in in verb no and beautiful castle of let me tell you that the common position before the negotiations of the of the mff and recovery so it's nice very very friendly cooperation coming from quite pragmatic roots but in the same time no one of those countries would like to reduce the european activity just to be for we we know that the EU is the richness of 27 and this form of cooperation isn't against anybody it's just the form to strengthen the message i'm turning back to to the external side i have a question from poric murphy a member of the institute a former ambassador in our service the current u.s administration has made no secrets of its hostility to the european project how do you see the role of the united states in europe it's a pity to hear some of the comments made by politicians on both sides about the future of europe american cooperation because our problems in security in welfare trade situation position in the world are mostly common and we shouldn't reduce the the common agenda for the world so we hear it with with concern we believe that especially now comments and narrative is sometimes not fully representative to the essence and substance i think there are many proofs that the reality looks looks better but we don't want to be blind to the fact that the unity or the transatlantic unity is in crisis and what diverges from from some countries is is the fact that we want to to do something to to make it better because we are not satisfied with the fact that the transatlantic ties are not so strong as it should be so we want to show that this glass is half full not only half empty and of course we expect we hope that the mutual understanding will be better if i could just turn back myself to an internal policy if you like what is the position generally with regard to the polish economy but more particularly with regard to poland and the common currency the europe what is the current state of play in relation to possible membership i think our approach to a monetary integration as a country but also as a society is quite pragmatic and because i've been surprised to be honest by the fact that after the debt crisis but much later not during the most dramatic moments of this crisis when news were full of of quite toxic content we we noticed something very interesting that polls are definitely determined to to support european integration as a whole and in spite of some bad moments or a bad narrative in spite of some tensions there was no doubt that for for polls as a society is a nation european union is something absolutely obvious but in case of your your zone monetary integration the situation is different and when you see the polls it is not just political choice that's what i want to say it's not just a political choice of one or another party i think it is it is a national experience that the the future of your zone isn't very clear and isn't very known and that's why we are much more hesitant about the monetary integration and i think the crisis night in 2008 was was was important the experience i think polls followed the discussion inside the eurozone and at the moment we are pretty sure that in spite of enormous progress made we still have a list of questions especially about transfers and shards that which are not solved inside this this union so before this the problems like this will be solved i don't expect that the polls will be massively in favor of the eurozone it doesn't mean that we don't want to follow a responsible fiscal policy we we don't want to keep a monetary sovereignty to do with our currency whatever we we like no we we are very prudent and we we are very fiscally responsible country and we will hold that line but it doesn't mean that we will easily join the eurozone before the problems will be will be solved minister i think we can wrap it there i don't have at this point any further questions but i would like to thank you very much on my own behalf and that of all of the participants you've left us with a much deeper and more profound grasp of your own country's preoccupations in the post-covid european sphere but also you've given us great insights into the debates that are currently going on within the within the EU 20 27 as as we practically are now so i can only wish you well in these very difficult negotiations that you have described as upcoming and i very much hope that we'll be able to welcome you in person to the IIEA at a future date and perhaps to update us on how these negotiations and the european project have indeed turned out in this most unusual period that we're traversing thank you very much minister yes thank you i would be very happy to to join you one day in in Dublin because of many many reasons but also because of the reputation of your your institute a kind introductory remark is something is a question of culture i have no doubt but the kind final remarks is something even more valuable thank you very much for your kind words thank you all the audience i hope it was interesting and and hopefully to see you one day very much thank you