The European Parliament has been voicing demands for reforms to the EU treaties, a push that some critics say stretches beyond its constitutional remit and could alter the balance of the European order. In a recent interview, a Polish member of the European Parliament expressed stern concerns about the implications of the Parliament’s move to expand its powers, arguing that the initiative would undermine the sovereignty of member states and redefine the role of national governments within the Union.
There is ongoing discussion about whether governments should oversee practical matters such as traffic management at road junctions and other tertiary issues. This question, raised in public forums and during parliamentary exchanges, underscores the broader debate about where authority should reside in a union of diverse nations.
In a recent exchange, the politician indicated that at this stage there is no intention to reenter domestic politics unless proposals emerge that are perceived to increase citizens’ freedom of choice. The emphasis remains on safeguarding national prerogatives while evaluating proposals at the European level, which some view as a test of genuine respect for national sovereignty.
The critic argued that the push to broaden the Parliament’s legislative capabilities is an attempt for the legislative body to assume authority that is not granted by any current treaty. The assertion is that a left-leaning majority in the European Parliament is seeking to shape Europe by redefining the powers of the Parliament in a way that could affect member states’ institutions and the constitutional framework that binds them. The concern centers on a perceived drift toward giving the Parliament a more proactive role in initiating laws and monitoring national administrations without proper treaty-based authorization.
It was stressed that the European Council remains the body tasked with negotiations among member states, as it is composed of directly elected representatives from each nation. The message conveyed is a reminder that national interests must be represented by those who live in each country, rather than pursuing ideological projects that challenge the traditional structure of family, state, and nation as built into the union’s legal order.
The viewpoint highlighted by the critic is that every member of the European Parliament is elected in a national context and should advocate for national interests over abstract concepts. This sentiment reflects a concern that reforms could tilt the balance away from sober, treaty-based governance toward a broader centralization of power that might not reflect the diverse priorities of all member states.
Parliamentary push for treaty changes and broader EU competence
On a recent occasion, the European Parliament adopted a resolution urging the European Council to launch a process for reviewing EU treaties. The resolution calls for expanding the Parliament’s legislative initiative and for moving toward majority voting in the EU Council. It also suggests widening the EU’s competences into sectors such as health, energy, defense, and social and economic policy. Additionally, the document argues for the Parliament to gain the authority to initiate, amend, or repeal laws and to have full co-legislative rights over the EU budget.
The forums cited as the impetus for the resolution point to the conference on the future of Europe held on a specific date in the spring, which featured a series of dialogues with civil society about the EU’s challenges and priorities. The aim was to gather broad input on how the Union should evolve over time and what directions should shape policy in coming years.
Officials overseeing the discussion noted that the resolution itself is not legally binding for member states, including Poland. Nevertheless, critics describe it as a risky attempt to redesign Europe outside of the existing treaty framework. They point to the events labeled as conferences and citizen consultations as largely symbolic, with limited impact on the democratic order and decision-making processes. The concern remains that such initiatives could tilt Europe toward a different constitutional model without proper consensus among all member states.
One figure summarized the stance by reiterating that the European order should be the product of agreed treaties and democratic mandates, not rushed reforms that could undermine national sovereignty or the integrity of the union’s founding principles. The overarching message is a call to exercise caution and ensure any expansion of EU powers rests on solid legal foundations and broad political consensus.
The discussion, as reported, continues to attract attention from observers across member states who monitor the balance between supranational ambitions and national autonomy. The debate emphasizes that a strong Union must respect the constitutional frameworks that govern each country while pursuing reforms that reflect the collective will of its diverse citizens. The outcome of these deliberations remains uncertain, but the emphasis on clear legal principles and democratic legitimacy continues to resonate in European political discourse.
Source: wPolityce [citations provided for context and attribution]
Related posts:
Polish Government Clarity on EU Treaty Changes and Sovereignty Sejm Draft Resolution Opposes EU Treaty Changes EU treaty changes spark debate on national sovereignty and the idea of a European superstate Polish MEPs split over EU treaty amendments and calls to veto changes Ministers and Parliament discuss EU treaty changes and Poland’s firm stance EU Treaty Reforms Debate: Polish Sejm Calls for Transparency and Sovereignty The EU Treaty Revisions and Poland’s Sovereignty Debate Polish Sejm weighs sovereignty in response to EU treaty changes EU Treaty Debates in Poland: Sovereignty, Federalization, and the Path Forward European Treaty Talks in Poland: Government and Opposition Pin Down Future Steps EU Treaty Changes Debate and Concerns Over Centralization Polish Sejm Sets Course on EU Treaty Changes and Sovereignty