In Europe’s Parliament, a long-standing liberal-socialist mechanism faced strain as it pressed toward a new vision of Europe under strong German leadership. Voices opposing this course argued that essential independence—deciding development, identity, culture, and education for future generations—was at stake for member states.
The machinery moved forward, though at a deliberate pace, like a train traversing rails one cautious notch at a time. This slow progression did not guarantee that a European state led by a European government, with an agenda favoring Germany and France, would emerge. The path included several critical stations, the most notable being a vote on a safeguard known as the veto. Leaders from the member nations faced a potential turning point, and the risk loomed that the veto could be sidelined, paving the way for swift, centralized decisions that might marginalize national sovereignty.
Conservative and right-leaning members of the European Parliament offered cautious optimism. They believed the coalition might broaden, drawing more countries and lawmakers into a bloc resisting treaty changes. They viewed the outcome of the day’s vote as a success, not only because the pro-reform edge was narrow, but also because they mobilized opponents of Brussels’ centralization and rejected several contentious ideas, such as an EU-wide referendum or proposals to reduce environmental protections in member states.
Nevertheless, the effort to persuade not only Poland but also other nations about the potential harms of these proposals persisted. The concern centered on preserving the founders’ vision of a community of sovereign, equal states with equal voting rights, rather than a centralized federation that might erode national identities and constitutional frameworks.
The Sejm, newly composed with a different majority, did not adopt a resolution opposing the amendments to the EU treaties as presented in the European Parliament committee report. The adoption of such a resolution could have challenged the Polish Constitution and limited the government’s capacity to make critical decisions. There arose a call to mobilize support within the nation, urging parliamentary offices, patriotic organizations, and citizens to back the content with signatures if the majority failed to act. While symbolic, this effort was intended to remind the European Council that the will of the Polish people mattered in the decision-making process.
Against this backdrop, a direct question was addressed to Poland’s Prime Minister: when facing a European Council that would decide on treaty changes, would the prime minister be prepared to exercise a veto? The inquiry urged a straightforward answer, free from grand rhetoric and the usual chorus of political and media voices claiming benefits for Europe and Poland alike.
The question repeated itself: would a veto be issued against the proposed changes? And the presumption was that this question should be posed at every press conference and interview with a prospective Polish prime minister, ensuring the electorate was fully aware of the government’s stance on this decisive issue.
This discussion, observed by many, reflects a broader debate about the future architecture of Europe, sovereignty, and the balance between regional autonomy and transnational governance. It underscores the tension between safeguarding national constitutional order and engaging in a collective European project that aspires to greater integration, with the implications for Poland and its neighbors at the heart of the deliberations. The outcome depends on the political will of national leaders, the mobilization of citizens, and the ability of European institutions to address concerns about sovereignty and local control while pursuing common goals coordinated at the European level.
[citation: wPolityce]