In a televised discussion on TVP Info hosted by Bronisław Wildstein, a prominent European Parliament member, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski argued that the changes being discussed are so sweeping that it would no longer resemble the European Union as it exists today. He described a transformation so deep that he believes a new entity would emerge, which he characterizes as a “super state.” The claim drew attention for its provocative framing and raised questions about the implications for Europe’s political structure.
The central question raised by Saryusz-Wolski concerns the defining features of this alleged super state. He described it as possessing oligarchic traits, suggesting that power would be concentrated in the hands of a few member states and political forces. In his view, this concentration would enable certain blocs to dominate others while still forming strategic alliances, including potential alignments with Russia. The description paints a bloc where influence is exercised through negotiated pacts and selective governance rather than equal participation among all members.
According to his assessment, the essence of the proposed changes is that numerous shifts have accumulated to such an extent that the entity would function more like a unified political unit than a traditional international organization. In this vision, member states would effectively become federated states, losing some autonomy while contributing to a central framework that governs common policies at a higher level.
Wildstein’s guest further identified which authorities he believes should be transferred from the national level to the European Union. He indicated a substantial expansion of EU competences, noting that nine new powers would come under the EU umbrella. He categorized two as exclusive to the Union while seven would be shared areas that still fall within the union’s reach. The areas listed included environment and climate, foreign policy, security policy, defense policy, border policy, cross-border infrastructure, industry, and education and healthcare. The emphasis, he argued, was that a broad swath of governance would shift toward Brussels, with national governments delegating significant decision-making authority to EU institutions.
In this framing, the question for Member States becomes immediate and practical: what remains for them to handle independently? The speaker suggested that very little might be left to national governments as a result of these broad transfers. This perspective invites observers to consider how such shifts would affect sovereignty, national policymaking, and the balance of power within the EU. Supporters might argue that deeper integration could yield greater cohesion, easier cross-border cooperation, and a unified approach to shared challenges. Critics, however, may warn of diminished national control and the risk that decisions would be driven by a central agenda rather than local priorities. The discussion thus touches on core debates about the direction of European integration and the future of regional governance across diverse member states. [citation]
The exchange highlighted the broader conversation about how Europe could reorganize its political landscape in the coming years. It underscores questions that resonate beyond political theory, affecting economic strategies, security planning, and social policy across North America and Europe. Observers in Canada and the United States might consider how shifts in EU governance could alter trade relations, regulatory standards, and international partnerships. The dialogue also reflects concerns about the mechanisms of accountability, the transparency of decision-making processes, and how citizens might engage with an increasingly centralized governance model. [citation]
As the dialogue concluded, the commentary pointed to a moment of significant reflection about Europe’s trajectory. Whether one views these proposals as a path toward greater unity or as a risk to national sovereignty, the discussion highlights the continuing evolution of European institutions and their role on the world stage. The debate remains a focal point for policymakers, scholars, and the public as they weigh the benefits and trade-offs of deeper integration and potential realignments in regional power. [citation]
kk/TVP info
Source: wPolityce