Krzysztof Szczerski - Foreign policy adviser to the president of Poland HARDtalk

Does Poland's recently elected conservative, nationalist Government

represent a threat to European values of freedom and democracy?

The European Commission is investigating that

after controversial media and court reforms prompted critics to condemn

My guest today is Krzysztof Szczerski, the foreign policy

How will a newly assertive Poland play its hand in Europe?

Krzysztof Szczerski, welcome to HARDtalk. It's my pleasure. I want

to begin with the most pressing matter facing the European Union

right now. Within hours there will be a European leaders' summit

dominated by the question of Britain and its future in the European

Union. David Cameron has been pushing very hard for a series of

concessions, a redefining of Britain's relationship with the EU.

He has been in Warsaw to try to win support from your government. Are

you on his side? We are on the side of the British being in the utopian

union because we believe in a united Europe. But on the question of the

serious debates and the quotations going on, still some things are open

and at the last round of negotiations is needed. We hear that

your government in Poland along with three other East European member

states of the European Union are still not satisfied with the deal on

the table when it comes to benefits and the British government's demand

that it be able to block the application of in work benefits to

EU migrant workers inside Britain. What are your concerns? Of course,

I'm not here to conduct negotiations. I'm interested in the

red line, the most important thing for us. We should not harm the free

movement of people which is freedom of workers, which is one of the most

basic freedoms of the European Union. All the changes in the

benefit system should not harm the free movement of people themselves.

Secondly, if we want to have a deal based on British concerns, it should

be specially tailored for Britain, for a special kind of benefit

system, and not contributory that exists here in Britain. That should

not be the example to set for the rest of the European countries. You

want it written into any agreement that this cannot be a model for any

other member states to impose new limitations on benefits? Surely not.

It must be especially tailored for Britain and for the system they

have. Especially also for the newcomers that will come to the

United Kingdom. That is a crucial point. Are you saying that all of

these limitations on benefits, including in work benefits and

rearrangement of child benefit, none of this can apply to Polish citizens

or other EU citizens who are already in the UK working? Yes because they

are contributing to the system where they work. If they are already here

and keep working, helping Britain to grow through their work, they should

have full access to the system in the country they work in. But that

means more than a million Polish people believed to be in this

country today, none of this will apply to them as far as you're

concerned? Yes, but the reason for that is not just because we are

standing by our citizens. It is just because it is a principle that if

you are already in the system and you are working, you should have

access to the benefits coming from the fact that you are legally in the

country of your residence. Acting under law but is retroactive,

otherwise it is harming people already in the system, that would be

against the basics of European legislation. A final detail point on

this and then we both get to the bigger picture. The British

government appears to believe that some EU workers come to Britain

because they are attracted by the benefits, including child benefit

for all those who have children. So the message from the British

government is that child benefit will no longer be given as it is to

British citizens but will be tailored to the cost-of-living in

the home country of the EU migrant workers. Is that acceptable to

Poland? In general, gas, but there are many questions as to how to

organise the whole system within taxation -- yes. Not every model of

the system will actually work. Also they need a benefit for the British

budget. They should think about and that is what these last-minute

negotiations are that are still on the table. First of all, there are

many Polish people living in Britain. Of course, we would prefer

them overcome back and find a job and work within Poland. But as they

stay in Britain, we are, of course, obliged to stand by their rights in

every country. We are saying it should not make a model and example

for others to follow in this way. You made that point very powerfully.

Specifically on child benefit, are you saying you will ultimately

accept the downsizing of child benefit payments for Polish workers

in the UK? You will accept it? Depending on the formula it will

work in. You used a phrase earlier which is important to any

negotiation. You said there are red lines that you will not frost. As

things stand right now just hours before the talks in Brussels, are

there red lines that frankly, you will not cross, which means there

could be no deal? There could be no deal. There are red lines that we

won't cross. So as far as you are concerned, David Cameron has to make

some concessions which he has not made so far? As I said, negotiations

are still open. The deal is not done yet. That is the message. The deal

should be done between the Prime ministers in Brussels because things

are still open. But the President of the European Council, your fellow

countrymen, Donald Tusk, said, and he was really speaking about Poland

and other Eastern European countries that have problems with David

Cameron's proposals, he said be very careful because there is a

possibility here of breaking this process and once it is broken, it

will be impossible to put it back together again. Are you prepared to

risk a breakdown of this deal, which will leave Mr Cameron in an

extraordinarily difficult position? It is not a tug-of-war, it is a

negotiation that should follow processes. We are very careful in

building consensus, that means nobody going over the room is fully

satisfied. But we all know that the deal is better than no deal and we

are still in a situation where the deal should be better than no deal

but still, we have to work on it. There are some leaks from diplomats

in Europe which seems to suggest that some countries, I am thinking

of Belgium for example, are pretty your tainted with the UK. There is a

feeling that even at this and Mac game of the negotiations come of the

UK's acting in an arrogant fashion. Some say the UK's focused

unilaterally on itself rather than thinking of the collective. Do you

share that view? I am the last one to judge the other country's

behaviour. I just believe in a good solution. For Europe. To keep the

Union of Europe and to keep Britain in, to keep Polish people in Britain

and keep benefits in their pocket. We are still... The puzzle can be

solved but it just needs an openness from both sides and respecting these

red lines because they are general. The fact is that we are not

advocating Polish rights, the right to Polish people. Actually in the

last years, it is not the Polish people who are the biggest

immigrants to Britain. We are not advocating the rights just to Polish

citizens living here. We're advocating the principles of the

free market, of the common market, which includes the freedom of

movement. Which includes the freedom of work, which is actually

beneficial to Britain. Britain is benefiting from the free movement of

work. You keep talking about red lines and if there are red lines,

you have to count the possibility that they cannot be brought to

consensus and Britain might not get the deal it wants. How damaging do

you do get would be for Britain if, in the end of this long process with

a referendum, Britain were to walk away from the European Union? Who do

you think would be damaged more? The European Union orb or ten? It would

be on both sides. -- or Britain. Talking even louder, the free world.

We cannot afford another crisis. We have already been at the forefront

of many deep crises in Europe and the Democratic free world with the

migration, Russia and Ukraine, with the situation in the Middle East and

North Africa. We have so many crises that to find ourselves in another

one just because of a lack of political skill to find a proper

solution at the end a big negotiation process would be

damaging for the community, has such. You are a member of the Law

and Justice party, the Eurosceptic party in Poland. I wouldn't call it

that. I would, looking at your programme. You are right, but we are

realistic, rather than nationalistic and Eurosceptic, we are patriotic.

You can use that word if you want but you don't believe in this notion

of ever closer union anymore than many people in the United Kingdom

do. Is Britain were to walk out of the European Union, a precedent that

you might want to follow? Poland is quite different. We don't have a

spirit of isolation. We are not off in the ocean for self-defense. We

are in the crossroads of Europe and for most of our history, we are not

in a position that enables us to think of disunited Europe. When

Europe was disunited, Poland was always touched badly by the

divisions of Europe. So the unity of Europe helps us. This is a different

position but still, we really believe in Poland, especially my

party which is the governing one now in Poland. We still believe in a

Europe of free nations and equal states. The European Union, leaving

it is not our slogan, we believe in a free Europe of equal states,

listening to each other and respecting each other's interests. A

lot of people in Europe are listening to you and not necessarily

respecting her political position quite so much, as you might wish,

right now because the European Commission is conducting an inquiry

into the degree to which your government is violating fundamental

principles of freedom and democracy. That's a long story. We

have a dialogue with the European Commission on a certain law that was

passed in Poland. To get into this, I know... It is an inquiry not a

negotiation. They know what you have done in terms of firing the senior

management in both the state, public-service radio and

television, obviously violating principles of freedom and

independence in media and also looking at what you have done in

your Constitutional Court, and they have concluded that there are

grounds to be very concerned about the state of democracy in Poland

today. Right. Should I start from the very beginning? The media. He

the only change that has been made is to bring back the corporate

governance in the media. The media in Poland, in every state it is

different, for us it is a state-owned company. It works under

corporate law. The only change that has been made is the fact that the

minister of the treasury, that actually is responsible for public

corporations in Poland, is now appointing the supervision. Senior

positions in the media and television are now the gift of the

treasury or the government. If you want to control the company coming

you need corporate governance. That can be seen as state propaganda and

that is fine but most European countries aspire to something

better. It is not a state propaganda anywhere. It is a language barrier,

I know but if you look at the public media nowadays, you have not seen

any change in political lines of the political... Whether you listen to

senior journalists in our country or the Council of Europe which has

expressed raved concerning disappointment with what you have

done, all of these independent bodies both Polish and non- Polish

are looking at what you have done and saying it is not living up to

European standards. My experience is that when the representatives of

these bodies come to Poland and are confronted with the facts, not

opinions, but the facts, and actually see in place how these

things look, they are not that harsh in their opinions at all. It depends

who you talk to. Listen to the words of your own

president's law tutor, one of the most respected, he says with the

changes to court, those that rust through the appointment of five new

judges and paralysed the court, he said he is deeply upset in

appointing these new judges the government is showing disregard for

the law. -- rushed. They are walking all over the Constitution for

political expediency. Yeah. I have agreed that there are political

debates in Poland over the Constitutional Court. It is a

dividing factor in the political debate. Take off your loyalist

hacked, are you really concerned by the way the government has treated

the Constitutional Court? -- hat. It is in a state of paralysis. It can't

work. In the United States there is a debate over whether resident of

bummer is legitimate in appointing a new justice. -- President Obama. In

Poland, five judges were appointed by the previous Parliament after the

election that ended the coalition of the previous terms. The court

declared that three of them were legitimate. The Constitutional Court

has found its own finding which your party does not accept. There is a

battle between the executive, your party, which wants to push through

its own highly controversial agenda, and the basic constitutional

framework of your country, which your party is trying to undermine

stability it is more complicated than that. -- undermined. If you

have an appointment, crossing the terms of the Parliament, when you

have this appointment and it is not like the internal rules of the

Parliament, just to push the appointment at the end of last year

ahead of the new... That is... I can tell you. There is a struggle of

Parliament between the Parliament and the Supreme Court over

relations. There is. As foreign policy adviser to the president, are

you saying to him, we have a problem because international perception of

Poland is terrible. It has been called a dangerous Putinisation, a

controlled democracy that subordinates the welfare of the

state to the will of the ruling party. He, Mr Short, was seen good

words about Putin, so I am not sure it is a criticism. -- saying. The

fact is that we have to explain what is going on in Poland. That is why I

am here on your programme now. Step-by-step, we have to explain the

situation grounded in the democratic choice of the Polish people. It is a

democracy in Poland. This is a democratically elected new

government. The majority of citizens are behind it. They have all the

legitimacy, democracy works in Poland. You have said you are at the

centre of Europe in Poland, but if we talk about one other issue,

migration and you, you were not in the mainstream. You have refused to

take any migrants. The EU wanted burden sharing and you have rejected

that. The leader of your party has said many controversial things about

migrants, they carry diseases and parasites and are dangerous to

Europe. Poland is out on a limb and is showing no compassion. We have

solidarity with the rest of Europe. Taking migrants, some of the million

or more that came last year may be solidarity, but you have refused.

The European border from the east is safe because Poland is doing better

job and not asking for any assistance. All the other countries

of Europe should say, OK, Poland is doing that job because they are

securing over 1000 kilometres of external borders without asking for

help or assistance or money. Do you agree with the president in saying

that migrants have diseases? It was taken out of context and exaggerated

in the media. It was a long speech of him that was just in words used

within the whole context... He is chairman of your party, Kaczunski.

It was in the past. It was out of context. It is, in a sense about the

way politics is itself in the wider world. -- sees. We have talked about

constitutional changes you have made. We have talked about the

migration policy you have adopted the what about your strategy towards

your important neighbours Germany and Russia? Your relationship with

Germany has deteriorated since you came to power and yet at the same

time you want Nato, of course Germany is an important member, to

put troops on your soil to stand up against any Russian threat. It

doesn't seem like your policy with Germany makes sense given your fears

with Russia. What is the relationship between Poland and

Germany? Give me an example. You talked about the need for Germany to

treat Poland as an equal partner last summer. Between...

(CROSS TALK). There was a host of things

you did not feel Germany was treating Poland is an equal with,

like climate change. With regards to that list, we have different

interests to Germany and are supposed to discuss them on an equal

basis. Do you think Germany was correct to welcome 1 million

migrants onto its oil? -- its soil. I think they are wrong. So you have

major differences with Germany. It seems to me this will be problematic

to have a bad relationship with Germany, they won't be keen to stand

with you against Russia. There are no bad relations with Germany. A

final thought about Russia. You wanted foreign troops on your soil,

he wants the missile defence system on your soil, relations between

Europe and Putin are difficult. If you get your weight things will get

worse. No, why should they? -- way. Will they want to see Nato troops

and missiles on your soil? That goes against the treaty signed in 1997

with Russia and Nato. Having them in Poland makes only the whole alliance

and the free world and Europe more safe. We want a deterrence only.

Reinforcement possibilities and a presence of Nato infrastructure,

troops, surveillance instruments, just to make the whole region more

stable and safe copy because nowadays... We have to end Max. I'm

sorry. -- safe. -- end. Is Putin a threat to Europe? I think Russia is

a threat to Europe to quite we have to end there. -- Europe. Thankyou

very much coming on HARDtalk. It's cold out there and there's

some wet weather around. The combination could mean it

it will be icy in the morning. Most places will have a sunny

Thursday morning, but for some it