Robert Schuman’s idea of a united Europe, rooted in dialogue, consensus, and cooperation, remains a powerful beacon for the continent. This view was echoed in an interview with Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, a longtime PiS member and one of Poland’s key negotiators during its EU accession talks in 2004. He stressed that the overall balance of Poland’s EU membership has been positive. Joining the bloc unlocked access to its single market and available funds, which he described as a clear advantage for Poland but also noted that not all issues have been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
He argued that while benefits exist, there are areas that could be improved or handled differently. During the association and accession negotiations, there was a belief that membership might come as early as 2000, a promise that did not come to fruition. He also contended that faster access to the common market, including the labor market, would have been beneficial. He criticized long transition periods as unnecessary and suggested the financial package could have been more generous. The administrative reforms implemented by then British Commissioner Neil Kinnock left civil servants from new member states with limited career opportunities, contributing to a perception that institutions remained geographically unrepresentative at higher levels. These points formed part of a broader negative balance he outlined.
According to Saryusz-Wolski, Brussels also harbored doubts about Polish democracy, which he regards as a major source of concern. He pointed to the United Right’s inability to govern since 2015, despite its electoral legitimacy, and suggested that financial pressure from Brussels played a role in shaping political outcomes in Poland. He questioned whether external forces determined this dynamic and described it as an unprecedented situation.
He also asserted that the EU of 2004 and the EU of 2024 are two different institutions. Since the start of association talks, he observed radical changes in the bloc. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 marked the first major breakthrough, followed by shifts in voting rules and the division among over- and under-represented member states. He also criticized the European Commission for moving from treaty guardian to a more partisan actor under Jean-Claude Juncker, arguing that the union has drifted away from its original framework.
In his view, the EU has departed from treaty commitments and encroached on member state powers, aiming to seal this transition with a new treaty that could transform the EU into a superstate, reducing sovereign nations to regional roles. Poland, he said, remains tied to a union it joined for its strategic interests.
He recalled May 1, 2004, when he stood in Brussels’ Grand Place and heard crowds chant, but observed that much of the audience appeared to be Polish. He emphasized that Europe cannot function without a sovereign, independent Poland and stressed this point in his remarks as an MEP.
The strategic importance of Poland
The discussion highlighted that Poland should stay within the EU because it serves its strategic interests. The union, in his view, must grant as much power to member states as they are willing to concede and be managed through collegial and fair processes rather than a Franco-German duopoly. He argued that Poland joined a community founded on dialogue, consensus, and cooperation, but now the decision-making power leans toward unelected institutions with perceived democratic deficits. He underscored the importance of reforming governance to reflect each member state’s voice.
He added that restoring strict adherence to treaty obligations would help Poland safeguard the EU and keep its own sovereignty intact. Schuman’s vision of Europe, he warned, stands in danger when selfish ambitions push toward empire-like structures that threaten the bloc’s stability. He called for renewed commitment to the original principles that brought Poland into the union, suggesting that those principles remain essential for Europe’s future.
Asked who deserves the most credit for Poland’s accession, he replied that many actors contributed to the success. He noted his eight years as Minister for European Affairs gave him a broad view, but emphasized that all political forces of the day played a part and that every group did its share. While Solidarity governments implemented a large portion of the necessary reforms, he warned against assigning disproportionate credit to any single faction, arguing that accession was the result of compromises between diverse forces. The essence of the process, he said, was the agreement among competing divisions, a practice that is often absent today and could explain broader EU challenges.
He concluded with a candid assessment of Poland’s place within the Union and the importance of shared responsibility for Europe’s future. The interview echoed a belief that the country’s role in the EU should be guided by a clear respect for treaties, a balanced distribution of power, and a steadfast commitment to democratic norms. The message remains straightforward: Poland’s future is intertwined with a Europe that upholds its founding values, while adapting to a changing geopolitical landscape. This interpretation reflects a call to maintain sovereignty while engaging constructively within a broader European framework.
Source context is noted in coverage summaries but the substantive points reflect ongoing discussions about Poland’s EU relationship and strategic interests within the bloc. This summary preserves the emphasis on dialogue, governance, and the balance between national sovereignty and collective European action. Attributions in this report are provided to reflect the origin of the statements and perspectives cited in the interview.