Concerns about political direction and sovereignty in Europe
Is there a growing gap between national interests and the actions of leading EU powers? How could a non-national actor gain traction in shaping the stance of an entire country, and why would a high-profile Polish official echo and expand these themes? Nearly a year ago, Berlin signaled it would curb perceived national selfishness, and now there is talk of changing how votes are counted. The Polish Senate’s Marshal weighs in, prompting reflection on the balance between national autonomy and coordinated European decision-making.
“The EU cannot afford national vetoes”
Despite criticism, the German chancellor has repeatedly pressed forward with a vision of a more centralized Europe, defending a strategy aimed at expanding the EU through revised rules of operation. Over the past year, he has articulated a preference for moving toward majority decisions in foreign policy and other key areas, including budgetary policy. In August 2022, during a Prague lecture at Charles University, he outlined the idea of gradually shifting to majority rule. An article published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung a year earlier echoed the same theme: national vetoes in foreign policy should be a thing of the past. Since then, the argument has resurfaced in various settings, consistently highlighting a push for broader consensus and stronger integration.
German vision of Europe
On 9 May, the chancellor spoke before the European Parliament in Strasbourg as part of the This is Europe series, where leaders shared their perspectives on the EU’s future. He presented himself as a facilitator for European unity and a steadfast supporter of Ukraine, while also signaling a drive toward deeper alignment and subordination of member states to a German-led framework. He urged more decision-making at the EU level and suggested that the European Council should increasingly operate by qualified majority, particularly in foreign and fiscal policy. He argued that genuine democracy relies on majority coalitions and partnerships that consider minority interests, framing this as the liberal democratic ideal.
In public remarks, he emphasized the need for reforms that strengthen the European Commission to ensure enforcement when core values are challenged, citing fundamental principles like freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and human rights. The discourse painted a picture of a liberal order that seeks to harmonize standards across the Union.
Yet critics describe these proposals as opening doors to new definitions and judgments that could stress national sovereignty. They warn that family protection, social justice, and unborn life could be reframed or restricted under a broader EU agenda, while policies on LGBT visibility might be treated as incompatible with certain value sets. The tension between freedom and centralized authority is presented as a core debate within EU reform, with proponents arguing that the expansion of EU powers should accompany a commitment to human rights and legal norms.
“A combination of oligarchy and tyranny of the majority”
One prominent voice in Strasbourg captured the essence of the debate. Professor Richard Legutko described the Union as a mix of oligarchy and majority rule, where Parliament embodies the tyranny of the majority and the Commission exerts outsized, unelected influence. The discussion underscored concerns about attempts to subordinate national sovereignty to EU mechanisms, with critics warning that such moves could undermine independent decision-making and national voices on the international stage.
As calls grow to resist attempts that would tighten EU control over voting and policy, questions about Poland’s role in defending its own interests gain urgency. The head of state and other leaders weighed in, stressing that blocking or delaying accession and reform processes could carry significant consequences for the cohesion of the community and its future enlargements.
Grodzki: ‘liberum veto led to tragedy’
Yet not everyone mirrors this alarm. When pressed about a proposal to limit unanimity in EU voting, the Marshal of the Senate offered a measured view. He argued that it is worth examining the historical consequences of the liberum veto, which at times triggered divorces and even territorial dissolution. Still, he cautioned that the processes unfolding within the EU would not be rapid, and the topic would require careful, long-term discussion. Critics still worry that such statements may blur lines between national interests and broader international engagement, potentially complicating Poland’s strategic autonomy in foreign affairs.
Many observers hope that Poland will safeguard its sovereignty while engaging constructively with EU partners, seeking alliances that strengthen its position without surrendering essential national levers of influence. The hope remains that Berlin’s interest in shifting political dynamics within Poland does not overshadow the country’s own strategic priorities.