What happened?
On 12 October, a Polish Constitutional Tribunal ruling that declared the primacy of Polish law over the EU law came into force. On 19 October, at the European Parliament plenary held at Strasbourg in France, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said: "If you want to make Europe into a nationless superstate, first gain the consent of all European countries and societies. The supreme law of the Republic of Poland is the constitution."

The Commission President Ursula von der Leyen responded: "It is a direct challenge to the unity of the European legal order. This is the first time ever that a court of a member state finds that the EU Treaties are incompatible with the national constitution." 

On 21 October, at the European Council summit held at Brussels, Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said: "If you want to be part of a club and have the advantages of a club, you must play by the rules."

What is the background?
First, the trigger. Poland and the EU have had a long-standing feud challenging the rule of law and the supremacy of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). It is in this backdrop, the highly-criticized Constitutional Tribunal passed the ruling. Allegedly influenced by Poland's ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS), the Tribunal is condemned for its illegitimate and biased undertakings. The PiS largely backed the ruling as it would facilitate in ridding judicial independence, letting them control the judiciary. Despite the MEPs' decision to not discuss Poland in-depth — fearing the length of such a discussion — this is exactly what happened. Overshadowing the Council summit's agenda, Poland challenging EU supremacy stole the show.

Second, the critics and supporters. Opponents to the Polish stance maintained that it could not "choose" to apply laws it had formerly ratified. The declining state of Europe's democratic values was another concern. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who is also at odds with the EU, was Poland's primary advocate. He questioned the need for imposing sanctions on "one of the best European countries," referring to Poland. Germany's Angela Merkel warned the EU against isolating Poland and called for measures that would unite the bloc instead of dividing it. Several EU leaders also requested that Poland change its stance.

Third, the Polish response to the retaliatory measures. Poland's pandemic recovery funds, which accounts for EUR 24 billion, are yet to be approved by the EU. At the plenary meeting, Morawiecki blamed the EU for singling out Poland by unjustly discriminating against them. He said that Poland would not "back down" in the face of "bullying and threats.

Fourth, no 'Polexit'. Similar to Brexit, 'Polexit' as a term has been coined to refer to Poland's potential exit from the bloc. However, Morawiecki has repeatedly denied the possibility of the same. He said: "We are here, we belong here and we are not going anywhere." Unlike Brexit, which received popular support prior to the exit, Polish citizens repel the thought of leaving the bloc. Staunch supporters of the EU, Poles are too accustomed to the benefits of being an EU insider. 

What does this mean?
The reality of the situation is that it is an unwinnable one and both parties are aware of this painful truth. The EU lacks the mechanisms to punish Poland such that it would revert its stance, while Poland's challenge against the EU will remain just that. An event wherein the EU budges on Poland's request is when the bloc will see its end; the supremacy of the rule of law is the bloc's foundation. If the EU were to emerge victorious by some fortuitous series of events, it would imply risking its own agenda — every major policy decision requires the bloc's unanimous vote; upsetting Poland will not help. Thus, the EU cannot afford to go into battle with one of its own.