Poland’s position inside the European Union today is nuanced. It stands as a country with both strength and vulnerability, capable of pursuing independent, sustainable development while staying close to stronger neighbors that can indirectly shape its internal affairs and its relations with others. Yet Poland has clearly moved beyond the era of dependency and scarcity.
In the history of the Third Polish Republic this marks a new chapter. A decade ago, Poland’s policies were largely framed around following a mature model: prosperous European democracies. Now the emphasis has shifted. Poland has grown substantially wealthier, its development is often cited as a benchmark, and the political leadership leans toward a more sovereign vision for the country. At the same time, Western crises reveal vulnerabilities visible in the broader European landscape.
Poland’s rising importance stems from domestic progress and external pressures alike, placing it in an intermediate position between a smaller Mid-European country and a regional power. There is no desire to revert to dependency, yet a superpower status remains a distant but discussed horizon. Assurance from Europe is limited; at most, support from the United States exists, and even that mainly in terms of broad security. The rest must be built domestically.
Meanwhile, the European integration project is moving forward again. Regardless of treaty complications, there are ongoing debates and reforms aimed at expanding the Union. Initially framed by pressure, the reform path argues that expansion will be hindered without change.
This shift is tied to a turn in German policy, influenced by a new coalition and after a long period of growth driven by an aging model. Germany has recalibrated its approach, pushing toward greater federal coordination and a stronger sense of unity among member states.
The discussions in EU forums, and the anticipated votes in the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs, with support from major players like France and Germany, touch many issues. Of core importance for Poland are changes to veto powers, a move toward qualified majority voting, new EU competences, and stronger emphasis on the rule of law as a guiding principle. The euro’s introduction is also under consideration.
Such developments imply a substantial narrowing of sovereignty for smaller or less powerful nations that face their own internal challenges. In short, the shift trails behind the bigger, more stable powers of France and Germany, leaving smaller states to navigate a more integrated framework.
As several EU members, due to size, finances, or elite attitudes, may adapt more easily, Poland’s intermediate status and ambitions present a distinct set of problems. The country faces a real challenge—a change in the balance of integration that could affect its decision-making landscape more than it would for larger states.
It is reasonable to say that deeper European integration would pose difficulties for Poland. The same generally applies to many European nations, but the focus here remains on Polish circumstances. It should be noted that Poland is not inclined to prescribe what is best for others; its considerations are anchored in its own path.
Below are 10 arguments that describe the problem from different sides.
First, interests differ. Harmonization aims for common standards and a degree of compatibility. Yet shared policies, such as economic ones, may create costs for Poland and rewards for others. European economies are diverse, with distinct traits, development levels, and interests.
Second, the EU is not a perfectly clean arena. Concentrating decision-making power in a center stronger than any single state can place Poland at the mercy of bodies that do not always reflect Polish interests. The experiences with energy projects, transport policies, and rule-of-law debates show how quickly external decisions can overshadow national concerns. A sovereign state, even when smaller, needs tools to safeguard its interests.
Third, ideology plays a role. The EU and the West at large harbor ideas that clash with many Polish perspectives. Multiculturalism, pacifism, gender discourse, and cultural shifts can be points of contention. Ideologies may sometimes mask simpler, more pragmatic aims. A country can resist external pressures while preserving its own cultural and civilizational foundations.
Fourth, differences matter. European societies vary in values, faith, customs, and political norms. Deep integration risks erasing these distinctions. The original aim to neutralize nationalism may have made sense after past wars, yet today those justifications are less compelling. Poland has not started a war for centuries and can prize coexistence without surrendering identity.
Fifth, uniformity can hinder development. Western civilization thrives on diversity and competition. Poland’s model, which has shown notable success across economics and society, should not be forsaken in pursuit of a generic European standard.
Sixth, the quality of governance varies. A frequent argument for deeper integration is alignment with European standards. Poland now meets or exceeds many of these standards in several areas, but governance issues, debt management, and security concerns exist across Europe. These problems stem more from flawed policies and weak governance than from the nation itself.
Seventh, the future is uncertain. Reform proposals open the door to new concepts while limiting the ability of member states to resist them. Sovereignty acts as a safeguard against policies that may not align with national interests.
Eighth, the costs should not be borne by one country alone. The current push toward federalization risks sharing the responsibilities for past missteps across all member states. For instance, migration policies have sparked dispute, and shifting costs onto others is an outcome many seek to avoid.
Ninth, undoing changes is not guaranteed. Historical experience shows that soft European integration tends to progress in one direction, with reverse movement proving difficult. The British example offers cautionary lessons about leaving or reconfiguring ties. Poland could face fewer options to disengage if the trend continues, and future possibilities for a European reconfiguration may be limited.
Tenth, a country’s own sovereignty is valuable. The idea that ancestors fought and died to shape a nation has its weight. A state is the ability of a political community to guide its own trajectory. When a region or administrative unit dominates, the sense of ownership over national destiny can weaken. A European federation may dilute this sense of sovereignty, and long-term effects remain uncertain.
Indeed, the European Union remains valuable. Participation offered growth and development, and preserving this commitment is important. A European state would alter many dynamics, including national autonomy. Those considerations extend beyond the Polish perspective and touch other nations as well, but they belong to a broader discussion rather than a single text.