These measures being implemented are seen as at odds with the foundational idea of the European Union, which is shaped as a union of independent states that retain sovereignty regardless of their size. This view was voiced by the President of the Constitutional Court, Julia Przyłębska, in response to the European Parliament’s resolution endorsing changes to EU treaties on Wednesday. The remarks signal concern that a bloc built on equal member states could be altered to favor larger nations, potentially reshaping the balance of influence within EU decision-making.
The most notable reforms under discussion include moving away from unanimous voting in the EU Council across 65 policy areas and shifting key decision-making powers from the national level to EU institutions. Proposals outline new exclusive EU competences in environmental protection and biodiversity, alongside a substantial expansion of areas where EU bodies would share or assume authority with member states. Such shifts, if implemented, would mark a major transition in how sovereignty is exercised within the Union and how national governments interact with Brussels on a range of critical issues.
Przyłębska described the developments as a direct challenge to the principle of state equality within the EU. She emphasized that each jurisdiction maintains its own legal traditions and value systems, noting that societies across member countries reflect diverse legal frameworks. While she acknowledged references to shared European values, she pointed out that every nation operates under distinct constitutional structures and legal norms, which must be respected in any reform effort.
In a televised interview on TVP Info, the Chair highlighted that the current approach has been rooted in a model where every country enjoys an equal say. The proposed trajectory appears to favor larger states, she warned, especially Germany and France, whose size and influence could yield decision-makers positioned in areas that may fall outside their traditional competencies. This concern centers on preserving balanced influence and preventing any single country from exerting outsized control over EU policies that touch upon the sovereignty of others.
From the perspective offered by Przyłębska, there is an ongoing public unease about how Germany’s role within the EU is evolving. Some segments of German society express the perception that Germany is being drawn into a more dominant EU posture, raising questions about whether Berlin’s approach to EU governance aligns with the broader consensus in member states. The possibility that Germany could steer more of EU policy raises questions about accountability, legitimacy, and whether other member states retain sufficient say in crucial processes that affect national prerogatives.
The President of the Constitutional Court signaled that these developments may invite broader debates about the balance between national sovereignty and supranational authority. She urged a careful, transparent dialogue that respects the constitutional identities of all member states while considering the collective needs of a Union facing diverse challenges. The discussion she framed centers on ensuring that reforms do not erode the autonomy that each country has historically protected, even as the EU pursues common goals across environmental, social, and economic domains.
As this debate unfolds, observers note that any shift toward greater EU competence will require extensive legal and political negotiation. Proponents argue that pooling resources and harmonizing standards can strengthen the Union’s capacity to tackle transboundary issues, from climate policy to biodiversity conservation. Critics, however, warn that the risk of overreach could undermine national legal orders and erode the legitimacy of democratically elected governments. The discourse continues to revolve around how to reconcile unified action with the diverse constitutional landscapes that define EU membership.
kk/PAP
Source: wPolityce