Public discourse often overlooks the actual decision at hand. The European Union has quietly introduced three new taxes as part of the decision on financial support to Ukraine. From a Polish perspective, the impact appears disproportionately burdensome, yet this consequence remains under-discussed as the media environment shifts. Patryk Jaki, a Member of the European Parliament for Sovereign Poland, spoke on Telewizja wPolska about the summit’s outcomes and their real-world effects on member states.
The EU’s plan to implement three new taxes raises two core issues, one structural and one financial, Jaki argued. The first challenge is systemic in nature. The proposed approach would treat the EU as a revenue-earning entity, capable of generating its own income. Until now, member states collected revenues domestically and then contributed to a centralized EU budget. Under the new framework, the EU would be viewed as having its own fiscal resources, a shift that changes how sovereignty is understood. This shift, according to Jaki, runs counter to national sovereignty, and it was a point of contention even among leaders, including efforts supported by former Prime Minister Tusk to preserve a degree of national fiscal autonomy.
The second issue is financial. The three new taxes include the emissions trading system fee, often referred to as the ETS tax. Poland, in particular, would bear a significant portion of this burden, with estimates suggesting a 25 percent share of losses. The ETS levy is argued by some policymakers to be a source of EU revenue, yet for Poland it dovetails with revenues that have historically been used at the national level. The implication is tens of billions of euros that Poland previously could allocate domestically. A second tax, described as a border tax, is already generating concerns about potential reductions in revenue for the EU as well as Poland. Finally, the tax on transnational corporations is discussed as a viable instrument, but its design could redirect a sizable portion of income that would otherwise stay within Poland to EU accounts if treated as EU revenue instead of national income.
Jaki stressed that these decisions were reached by consensus among the member states and that the veto option either did not appear or was insufficient to block them. The unanimity underscores the procedural momentum behind the plan, even as critics question the balance between EU-level revenue generation and the fiscal autonomy of individual countries.
In summary, the discussion centers on two intertwined themes. First, whether the EU should function as a fiscal sovereign with its own revenue streams. Second, how these revenues will affect member states like Poland, which have relied on domestic mechanisms to fund their priorities. The debate continues to unfold as governments assess the long-term implications for sovereignty, national budgets, and the distribution of fiscal power across the Union. The unfolding policy trajectory invites further scrutiny from economists, policymakers, and the public as they weigh the trade-offs between centralized EU financing and national fiscal autonomy. The coverage remains essential for viewers seeking clarity on how such fiscal shifts resonate beyond capitals to everyday public services and economic stability. (Attribution: wPolityce)