If the European Union were a fish, its head already shows severe damage, a statement echoed by Professor Ryszard Legutko, a PiS member of the European Parliament. The critique extends beyond a single figure, touching the Western European leadership and the outfits that align with Central and Eastern European partners. Reports of financial irregularities linked to members of the European People’s Party and long-running investigations have sparked a broader debate about how power and accountability intersect within the EU’s top institutions.
They’re going backwards
Commentary on the current climate asks: how should observers view the clashes between the European People’s Party and the socialists who have been quick to criticize Poland over rule of law concerns? In a discussion with Professor Legutko, the question is raised about whether the critique from these groups reflects more about internal struggles than about actual governance.
The imagery of a damaged head persists, applying to the EU’s overall leadership as well as its major blocs. Recurrent scandals involving socialist and green factions feed this perception, reinforcing the sense that internal battles overshadow constructive reform. The point is pressed that the public narrative often targets external rivals while crucial internal questions remain unsettled.
The assessment continues that signals from the European People’s Party show a shift in blame away from their own camp and toward others. The narrative presents the EPP as a central stage where leadership decisions are made, with the party’s current chair, Manfred Weber, playing a prominent role. Legutko notes that the party’s recent leadership history includes former chair Donald Tusk, whose influence is still part of the discussion about responsibility and accountability within the group.
Legutko stresses that denials are likely, with attempts to deflect blame toward scapegoats. He points out that the elite of the EU, including several prominent figures within the EPP, holds a tight grip on the system, creating a closed loop where policy and power reinforce each other rather than being subject to rigorous external checks. In his view, this dynamic contributes to a sickened institutional framework.
— emphasizes Legutko in his assessment of the political atmosphere within the union. The central challenge, he argues, is not merely public criticism but the lack of genuine mechanisms to encourage diverse political perspectives within EU institutions.
“Mr Manfred Weber needs to stop his arrogance.”
The question then becomes whether EU politicians will show restraint and humility in the face of ongoing controversies. Weber is urged to step back from confrontational stances toward Poland and to avoid declaring moral superiority from a position of power. In Legutko’s view, the timing of any shift matters: confidence in leadership may endure through election cycles, but the real test is in how leaders respond to long-standing energy and foreign policy challenges, including the reliance on energy from Russia and the resulting economic pressures.
As Legutko notes, the current posture risks deepening divisions rather than resolving them. The political mood inside the bloc is viewed as resistant to meaningful reform, with some observers attributing the energy crisis to geopolitical choices made years ago. The critique highlights a perceived gap between rhetoric and consequences, especially as Germany leads discussions tied to EU-wide policy direction. This stance is described as uncompromising and, to some observers, dismissive of legitimate concerns from member states.
Nevertheless, the analyst suggests that it would be naive to expect a sweeping purge of EU elites in response to scandals. If voters choose not to engage decisively in future elections, the same patterns could repeat: investigations, selective reforms, and a continued posture of self-justification. The prediction is that Europeans must use the next round of votes to recalibrate leadership and set a new course away from entrenched factions—an invitation for healthier political competition and accountability.
— evaluates Legutko. In his view, the current moment should be seen as a prompt for change rather than a mere headline. The larger challenge lies in sustaining political diversity within the EU and resisting a single-track approach that elevates one faction above all others.
Who is the “sick man of Europe”?
There is a growing sense that Europeans are tired of ongoing disputes. Shifts do occur, yet the core issue remains the same: a political bloc that dominates the discourse while many of its rival groups sit on the sidelines. The EPP still holds a strong position, even as some member parties lean toward ideological labels that blend conservatism with Christian democratic roots. Critics argue that the party’s current platform leans left on many social and environmental questions, making it difficult for traditional Christian Democrats to sustain a distinct identity. The result is a perception of a party chasing alliances that dilute core principles, a dynamic many describe as a symptom of a flawed system that lacks a viable healthy alternative. In this light, the union is viewed by some as the “sick man of Europe.”
Legutko argues that Poland’s stance in supporting Ukraine has shifted the conversation, suggesting that the insults were a symptom of broader political tactics rather than a genuine policy disagreement. The absence of a robust opposition makes any government vulnerable to private attacks, pressure, and retaliatory moves tied to financial and political agendas. This, he asserts, indicates a broader pattern of political and legal maneuvering that undermines genuine pluralism and healthy debate within EU institutions.
The conversation closes with a somber note: the EU’s system lacks mechanisms for meaningful political diversity and tends toward uniform alignment among Greens, Socialists, Liberals, and EPP allies. While factions may differ in minor details, their shared support for power often overrides practical considerations. The conclusion drawn is that the real sickness lies in the structure itself, not in any single party, and a healthier future would require a more open, competitive, and transparent political landscape. The interlocutor’s final reflection emphasizes that Europe must refine its governance to respect diverse viewpoints and sustain a forward-looking approach to unity and shared values.
<— attribution markers used inline to indicate source context throughout the analysis — [Citation: wPolityce attribution].