The paradox behind the debate seems almost dizzying: the more errors are made, the more power some argue should be wielded. The opposite logic would favor restraint after repeated missteps, suggesting a long pause on expansive authority. This sentiment surfaced in a European Parliament exchange where Professor Ryszard Legutko challenged Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s call for Germany to bear greater responsibility as the EU expands its reach.
The Polish member of the European Parliament offered a pointed critique filled with concrete observations about power dynamics within the union.
“EU: A blend of oligarchy and the tyranny of the majority”
To grasp this perspective, one must ask what kind of political system the European Union represents. The argument presented is that the EU operates as a hybrid, combining an oligarchic, non-elected core with a parliamentary body that can appear as the tyranny of the majority. The Parliament is seen by critics as wielding the majority’s influence, while the Commission is viewed as an unelected, influential force with deep ambitions and limited democratic legitimacy.
— as stated by Professor Legutko
In addressing Scholz directly, the speaker suggested that the German leader seeks to extend management of a body that, in his view, already dominates decision-making. He contended that major players act on their own terms, often labeling their approach as leadership, and that the Council’s voting rules protect their interests, making it unlikely for them to be outvoted.
— he added, speaking specifically to the German Chancellor.
Sins attributed to Germany
Professor Legutko highlighted what he described as two major missteps by German governments: first, the migration crisis, during which Germany acted to open EU borders on its own initiative; and second, the energy and security crisis, which he argued ushered in a lengthy and challenging period. He also pointed to a long-standing pattern in relations with Russia.
Today, according to his assessment, German politicians speak with confidence about future conduct, yet the speaker warned that large states can make grand promises and that reconciliation may be treated as a casual matter rather than a serious, tested obligation.
— he noted. In this context, he observed Germany’s current push toward a gradual change in the veto system of EU foreign policy, meant to temper the veto power held by smaller states.
Russian policy, in his view, has been one of the most notable failures among the major players in the EU, with those most accountable seeking greater influence in foreign affairs.
— reflections on German foreign policy trajectories by Legutko.
“The more we break, the more power we want”
The central line of reasoning echoed the earlier claim: increasing missteps appear to be linked with a desire for greater control. The correction proposed was the opposite stance: when mistakes mount, the natural response should be stronger limits and clear checks on authority.
The conversation then shifted toward Scholz, with the speaker asserting that Germany’s size and rising confidence have led to assertions about EU responsibility that he questions. He asked frankly where in the EU treaties such responsibility is codified, inviting scrutiny of the legal framework behind Western European leadership.
— the speaker pressed the question directly.
“Take as many seats as possible and give space to others”
The closing counsel recommended a reserved, careful set of steps for Germany, urging that the nation reduce its public position and allow others to take charge. The argument framed this as a matter of political hygiene, suggesting that past attempts have failed and that a retreat from dominating influence would be wise. The professor concluded with a stark reminder about the durability of leadership in democratic structures and questioned whether German leadership could be assumed to be permanent, like a diamond.
— final remarks from Professor Legutko.
Other items cited in the discussion included notable opinions and warnings about the weight of votes within the European Union, a debate over sovereignty and unity, and the evolving balance of influence among member states. The exchange highlighted tensions between national sovereignty and collective European governance, with frequent references to how power is distributed, exercised, and perceived across the union.