Poland’s stance on proposed EU treaty changes drew swift scrutiny as Members of the European Parliament debated the next steps for Europe’s governance. A notable voice was MEP Róża Thun (Poland 2050), who argued that delaying the start of the debate could pose risks for both Poland and the EU, even as she voted in favor of a resolution backing amendments. Polish KO MP Bartosz Arłukowicz observed that the moment may not be ideal for such changes, both in Poland and across Europe.
In Strasbourg, the resolution endorsing amendments to the EU treaties passed with a vote tally of 291 in favor, 274 against, and 44 abstentions. Thun, along with eight other Polish MEPs who had previously served in the European Parliament through different party alignments, backed the resolution. The list of Polish supporters included members connected with the Socialists and Democrats, Renew Europe, and Green groups. By contrast, other Polish MEPs aligned with PiS, the Civic Coalition, and PSL opposed the resolution, showing a clear cross‑party split.
Critics labeled the move controversial, pointing to the nine Polish MEPs who voted in favor and highlighting how voting dynamics influenced the overall outcome. Some argued that ministerial positions underscored Poland’s influence on the vote, signaling high political stakes involved.
Timing and Perspective on Treaty Change
KO MP Bartosz Arłukowicz and MEP Róża Thun, who joined Poland 2050 in 2021, spoke on TV about the proposed changes and the newly adopted resolution. Arłukowicz stressed that the timing is not ideal and cited a fragile global security environment as a reason to avoid haste. He referenced conflicts in Ukraine, Israel, and the Gaza Strip to argue for a thorough discussion within Poland, urging the government not to pursue destabilizing moves and signaling that a future pro‑European majority might pursue more coordinated action in health care and other areas.
Arłukowicz reiterated his strong support for Europe and for shared action in essential sectors, while cautioning against rushing changes.
Thun’s Rationale and the Debate Ahead
Thun explained the vote by emphasizing the need for a common health policy and other areas of shared action. She noted that many important decisions arrive at times that are rarely ideal, yet the resolution serves as a formal starting point for discussion among governments. The affirmative vote signals that the debate can proceed and allows EU members to scrutinize the proposed changes and decide where reforms are necessary.
Thun warned that a refusal to engage in dialogue could hinder Europe’s forward momentum. She asserted that the process must continue and that the step, though modest, is essential for a serious conversation about the EU’s future structure and powers.
Her remarks stressed that the outcome mattered not only for the EU’s institutions but for citizens across member states who expect better European coordination in areas such as public health. The focus remained on constructive dialogue and prudent consideration of potential shifts in governance rather than confrontation.
Party Lines and Parliamentary Autonomy
Earlier statements from Poland 2050 leadership noted that MEPs enjoy a degree of parliamentary freedom and can vote according to what they believe serves Poland’s best interests. The party reiterated that a legislator’s loyalty to party recommendations does not rule out independent judgment when facing complex policy questions.
Leaders emphasized that differing opinions within the party are part of a healthy democratic process. The overarching message was that diverse viewpoints must be respected and that internal debates should not be punished if they reflect genuine consideration of national interests and European wellbeing.
The discussion around EU treaty changes centers on expanding shared competencies and revising voting procedures. Proposals include moving away from unanimous consent in a broad set of areas and elevating EU‑level decision‑making in fields such as environmental protection, biodiversity, foreign policy, border management, public health, civil defense, industry, and education. These ideas aim to strengthen European coordination while maintaining a balance with member state sovereignty.
Commentators noted that the debate would continue in the coming weeks as policymakers weigh the political implications and practical impacts of potential reforms. The focus remains on ensuring that changes are backed by clear, well‑informed discourse and reflect the interests of citizens across Europe.
In summation, the vote opened a new chapter in EU governance discussions. It underscored the need for careful, inclusive deliberation about the Union’s future powers and procedures, while leaving room for pragmatic health and policy cooperation across the continent. The discussion continues as officials assess how reforms could affect both institutions and everyday public life across member states.
[Attribution: European Parliament records and national media reports provide context for the vote and the positions of Polish parties and MEPs.]